Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Sarah Palin-Impersonating Porn Star Strips for RNC Delegates at GOP-Themed Club in Tampa

Family values indeed:

Political conventions are about many things, but they’re mostly a means of supplying plenty of creative fodder for the sex industry. You may recall that, at the height of the nation’s Palinmania, the intersection of pop culture, politics and pornography resulted in 2008′s much talked-about Who’s Nailin’ Paylin? — a film that posed a question to which the answer was, evidently, “everyone.”

Well, the star of that film, Lisa Ann, knows fully well what butters her bread (so to speak). She made her way to Tampa’s Three DollHouse strip club to give her own version of an RNC speech, as The New York Post rather descriptively reports:
Ann hit the stage Saturday night in a hip-hugging business skirt and bustier as an announcer informed the audience that “Sarah Palin is in the house tonight!”
After a political hand wave, Ann tossed pictures of the Alaskan politico into the crowd as she proceeded to peel off her governmental garments with purring precision with Eminem blaring in the background.
“The hooting crowd seemed to approve of her positions,” the article concludes.
 Of course, the most surprising thing about this story isn't that the anti-smut party enjoys observing strippers, but rather the fact that said strippers in this case happen to actually be female.

Chris Matthews Takes Reince Priebus to the Woodshed

You know, Chris Matthews isn't a very popular guy, including among liberals. I can see where they're coming from, but when it comes to eviscerating douchebag right wingers, there's few that can compare:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Good gravy, did it feel absolutely wonderful to see Priebus get ripped a new asshole for once. Priebus gets away with so much shit when he goes on the cable news shows, that it's a welcome change to see him not able to squirm away.

Of course, he definitely tried to do just that by the end of the video, using the old "I'm too smart to directly refute your arguments" gambit.

One of the things that pleased me the most about this segment was that that Matthews pointed that several presidents had attempted to enact universal health care (This was the point where Priebus realized he was in over his head and would no doubt cry himself to sleep in the hotel room he shares with John Boehner.). It's always infuriated me how very few journalists, including the so-called "liberal" ones, rarely pointed this out during the whole HCR saga, so good on Matthews for pointing this out.


But there is one major point that I was somewhat disappointed (and surprised) that Matthews didn't mention. When Priebus kept mentioning Obama was looking towards "European" influences on things like health care, Matthews had a perfect opportunity to say: "He wasn't looking towards Europe, he was looking towards Massachusetts! You know, the state that was run by the guy running for president in your party that created the plan that Obama copied?".

Still, aside from that, overall brilliant job, Chrissy.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Republican Senator: GOP Platform Doesn't Mention Rape and Incest Exceptions For Abortion Because That Should Be Left to the States

On MSNBC's News Nation, host Tamron Hall invited Republican senator, Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to discuss among other things, the stance on abortion adopted by the GOP Platform Committee. It led to this exchange:

Hall: The platform is silent on the issue of abortions for victims of rape or incest.

Blackburn: It is silent on exceptions because that is an issue handled by the states.


Hall pressed her on why this would be an issue for the states, considering the types of people in the Republican party, like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan. Blackburn went on a weird rant about how the platform is mostly focused on the economy and that the DNC never let any pro-life Democrats speak at the convention, or something.

Watch the full interview below:


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Re: Lack of Updates

Apologies for the lack of updates. Work suddenly started picking up again - which is good for that whole paying bills and living thing, so I'm not complaining - so it's been a little difficult to focus on the blog. But I'll be making a better effort now that my hours are a little more manageable. Definitely a good thing since I got a lot of opinionatin' to do!

Friday, August 17, 2012

5 Easy Arguments To Combat Romney/Ryan's Medicare Muddling

I've complained rather often about the general uselessness of our media (and might I add, rightfully so!). But every once in a while, I find myself being pleasantly surprised to see some random journalist actually (gasp!) doing their goddamned job! I am referring of course, to CNN's adorable Soledad O'Brien, who did a great job taking Romney flaks John Sununu and Tim "T-Paw" Pawlenty to task on the hypocrisy of slamming Obama for medicare "cuts" that VP nominee, and boy "genius", Paul Ryan himself supported. Soledad deserves a lot of praise for going above and beyond the call of duty... by doing the absolute fucking minimum that one would expect of a journalist.

Unfortunately, while my little cutie pie did a good job on her own, she could have been more effective with her arguments. Here's the thing. Citing the CBO and using numbers and charts and such are definitely good things, but they're the type of things that seem directed toward those of us who have no lives that already follow politics pretty closely. The average voter however, doesn't know what the hell a CBO is.

No, the proper way to go about this is to ditch them fancy words and numbers, and basically make the arguments against the Romney/Ryan attacks as simple and easy to digest as possible. And because I'm such a helpful guy, allow me to suggest some solid defenses.

1. If they bring up the Obama cuts to medicare and whine that it was such a horrible idea, ask them if they agree that it was also horrible for Ryan to keep those same cuts as well.

Now, some of you may be saying "Wait, they HAVE been bringing that up this week.", you are correct, but not really. It's true they bring up Paul Ryan's cuts as well, but the guests usually escape by saying that they're going with Romney's budget (whatever that is) instead of Ryan's. Keep the focus on Ryan, ask your guests whether Ryan was right to keep those cuts, and what does that say about Mitt Romney's decision making ability to choose someone like Ryan despite supporting such policies.

2. Ask them why the hell would an evil socialist ideologue, who dreams of having every facet of your life run by the government, would support cuts to a program that's 100% covered by the government (medicare) want to divert money to a program that's much farther to the right, which relies heavily on the PRIVATE insurance market (Obamcare)?

This honestly seems like a no-brainer to me, and yet I haven't even seen the commies on MSNBC bring this up. Romney, Ryan and the rest of the Republican party have this major problem where they can't directly attack medicare as this evil government program because it's enormously popular. This lead them to resort to using an amazing bit of political jiujitsu where they're trying to make the argument that Obamacare, because it's less popular, is somehow MORE big government than even medicare. It's almost breathtaking how cynical such a move is, but that's what they're going with.

3. If Ryan's "premium support system"/vouchers/coupons are so awesome, why not offer that to seniors RIGHT NOW?

The Republicans have been making this argument that Ryan's voucher system works just like federal health insurance plans that all congressmen have. They say "if it's good enough for our members of congress, it should be good enough for the American people!". Of course, although it sounds awesome, it's clearly not awesome, or perhaps TOO awesome for current seniors. This would put the Reps in a real pickle, and they'd have trouble weaseling their way out. If it really is so great, then they should convince current medicare beneficiaries to make the switch and see how well that goes. If it's not so great, then Republicans will be caught admitting that in addition to wanting to fuck over younger people, they will be admitting that a government run program is BETTER than a private alternative! The lols that would come about seeing the logical contortions alone would be worth bringing this up.

4. If Romney so desperately wants to keep those cuts from going into effect, how does Romney plan on paying for it and how does increasing medicare spending increase the solvency of the program?

It probably doesn't need to be said, but if you're going to increase spending on something, that additional money needs to be coming from somewhere else. What further programs is he gonna cut and whose taxes are he gonna raise? Or he going to just borrow money from China to fund socialized medicine?

5. Is Obama actually cutting medicare or not?

One of the many complaints the Right has about Obama is that he's not a proper leader because he's afraid to make important decisions on entitlements, and thus refuses to cut a single cent from medicare. This argument is being made simultaneously alongside another argument where Obama's somehow actually hates medicare and wants to gut it spectacularly.

Either Obama's a timid little wienie who's afraid to "make the touch choices" or he's a heartless, evil medicare raider. He can't be both.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

RNC Chair: Mitt Romney Represents the American Dream

 The execrable RNC Chair, Reince Preibus slithered his way onto MSNBC's The Daily Rundown today, and as usual had a lot or Reince Preibus-y  things to say. But even by his own standards, this one was a whopper (skip to 1:43):

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

...

Who is Mitt Romney? A good, decent man that built something from nothing, that gave away his father's inheritance, that has saved the Olympics, good governor, I mean that story is a story of success that we in the Republican Party are gonna celebrate. We're going to celebrate the American Dream and success. We're not gonna be on defense with success and that is something I think you're gonna see at the convention, the Mitt Romney Story and the American Dream.

Yes, Mitt Romney, the son of a millionaire CEO and Governor of Michigan, who had pretty much everything handed to him on a silver platter, who begged the federal government to help him "save" the Olympics. supposedly one of his key accomplishments, is the embodiment of the American Dream.

As I've said before, Romney provides the inspirational proof that a White male born into wealth can still make it in this world, against no odds.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Top Romney Adviser: Private Insurance is the Best Thing Ever! But Don't Worry, We're Not Going to Give That To Current Seniors!

So I thought this was amusing. Romney adviser, John Sununu was on Hardball today, and while discussing Paul Ryan's plan to voucherize medicare, he said: "I'd rather have a private insurance policy than a government insurance policy any day!".

Now, a Republican supporting something private over something public is hardly a shocking revelation. But it's what he said mere seconds before that makes his statement interesting:


Matthews: But the future of medicare under the Ryan and Romney plan is to replace a fee for service program, which we've all grown up with, you go to the doctor and you pay for it with a voucher plan where you go out and buy insurance in the private market.

Sununu: No!

Matthews: That's what they want to do, both of them.

Sununu: But but that happens for people under 55!

Matthews: Well, why is that a good deal?

Sununu: We're talking people 55 and older right now who might be concerned?

Matthews: Well, why is that a good deal for future...

*cross talk*

Matthews: If it's so great, why not do it now?

Sununu: I'd rather have a private insurance policy than a government insurance policy any day!

Got that? Sununu thinks private insurance is the bestest thing ever. But apparently not awesome enough to convince current seniors to take that instead of medicare. Maybe Sununu's greedy and wants all the private insurance plans for himself!

Of course, Sununu knows damn well that seniors love them some socialized health care. Romney/Ryan not giving current seniors the option of getting private insurance is a tacit admission that they know their plan is full of shit.

Watch the whole interview below:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Grover Norquist Describes Paul Ryan As "Center-Right"

On a special Saturday showing of Hardball, Chris Matthews invited Grover Norquist to share his thoughts. This statement in particular stood out. After Matthews asked Norquist whether Rob Portmann or Tim Pawlenty would have achieved a similar level of excitement from the base, Norquist had this to say:


 
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Norquist: I think it would have been different because the broad center-right is more familiar with Ryan's work, the Ryan budget. Remember, Gingrich fell apart in the last campaign. when he sort of said "Well, set Ryan aside, I got another theory.", and his campaign imploded. The broad center-right has accepted the Ryan approach.
Does Norquist seriously believe this crap? If the things Paul Ryan supports count as "center-right", then what qualifies a person being far right? Supporting a bill that allows millionaires to beat homeless people with baseball bats? When Matthews pressed Norquist to qualify who he would think is further right than Ryan, Norquist diverted by bringing up Reagan and freedom and such. Not only is Paul Ryan in any way center-right, he's also the most right wing VP candidate since 1900.

Let's be real here. Paul Ryan is about as center-right as Jay Gould was.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Rudy Giuliani Goes Off Script, Claims Obama Wants to Lower Taxes Further

So former mayor, Rudy "9/11" Giuliani appeared on Fox and Friends to lambast the President about various things, but one of those things caught my attention (skip to 2:01):



...

[Referring to Obama] Trying to, trying to really create fewer people paying taxes. Roughly about 47% of people pay, if you look at what Obama wants to do with the tax code, we'd end up moving that number closer to 50%. It's a terrible direction for us to be going.

Got that? Obama doesn't want to raise taxes at all, the lousy socialist! And here we have a prominent Republican apparently very unhappy with the prospect of people paying less in taxes. What happened to "taxed enough already!"?

Of course, one could argue that he didn't say anything wrong at all, because the people Giuliani's referring to, aren't the "proper" type of people to receive help from the government. These are the people who need to be paying their fair share, and that it's about time some courageous soul stood up to these lucky duckies and demand that they stop taking advantage the generous tax breaks they receive on account of that whole being poor thing.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Rep. Allen West Supports Socialized Healthcare?

So, Fox News' Greta Van Susterenenenenenen, invited outspoken and REALLY douchey Tea Party Congressman, Allen West (R-FL) on her show Wednesday night to discuss the lawsuit being brought by President Obama regarding Ohio's military voting law. West made a statement that didn't really have much to do with the broader topic of voting rights, but it was worth highlighting (skip to 5:43):



...
And I will tell you this is a continuing episode because we have a president who, early in his administration, talked about our wounded warriors, they should go out and get private health insurance. So this a theme that has occurred where it seems that our military gets a backhanded slap. 

I really doubt that Obama has advocated such a thing in the past, though I could be wrong. But of course, what Obama did or didn't advocate is irrelevant here. Here we have a Republican, a Tea Party Republican, in fact, arguing AGAINST the free market and implicitly advocating evil socialized health care? Really? And you're saying Obama's the one that hates the troops? Time to add another member to your secret list of secret communists in congress, Allen.

Oh, and for the record,  congressman, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the President's supposed stance on hating the troops, with your own candidate's.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Raising Taxes on The Rich During a Recession is Stupid, Which is Why I'd Rather Vote to Raise Taxes On EVERYONE Instead

I must say, I'm glad somebody finally asked a Republican congressman straight up whether they would allow taxes to go up on everyone if President Obama and the Democrats don't budge on their preference to let the rates expire for the very wealthy. Surprisingly enough, it was CNN's Candy Crowley, not really my idea of a hard hitting journalist, who asked this (skip to 2:06).

 
Graham: Just quickly, yes or no. If the Democrats stay where they are and if the President stays where he is, would you be willing to say, "Fine, if we can't reach a deal, taxes go up on everyone.'

Graham: I'm willing to do the Bowles-Simpson plan. Not one person who's looked at this in a bi-partisan way has said you need to raise tax rates. Bowles-Simpson says let's flatten the tax code, let's eliminate all tax deductions but two, take the money to pay down rates...

Crowley: But long term. That's sort of a long term thing. These cuts will expire...

Graham: I'm not gonna do a short term thing, that's stupid. It would be stupid, in an economy this weak to raise tax rates on a million small businesses at a time where they can't hire people.

Graham argued for the first several minutes about how taxing ANYONE at the current moment would have a devastating effect on the economy! But if he's not able to protect the people he actually gives a shit about, well, clearly it's preferable, perhaps even morally justifiable, to screw over EVERYONE else too. Clearly, THAT will somehow have less of a negative effect on the economy.

Republicans in the Senate last week voted against extending tax cuts for only people making under $250,000, as did their colleagues in the House. It should go without saying, but unfortunately, it NEEDS to be said, repeatedly:

Republicans don't give a shit about you if you're not rich. 

The ONLY reason they allowed these tax cuts on the middle and lower classes to begin with, was simply to allow greater tax cuts on the very wealthy to go through. It's disgusting how these people have this reputation of being against taxes. The love taxes, as long as they hit those who can least afford them.

LOL. Mitt Romney in 2001 Admitted He DIDN'T Build That

In this case, the "that" in question is the Olympics, which is pretty much one of the few remaining things that he feels safe enough to take credit for. Via Huffpo:

Mitt Romney said he would have been unable to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, had it not been for the "enormous spending and services of the federal government."

The words, uttered by Romney in 2002, are in direct contrast to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's relentless attacks on President Barack Obama over his "you didn't build that" comments.
Romney and Republicans have spent the last month knocking Obama as government-obsessed and for crediting Washington with the success of small businesses. But by the former Massachusetts governor's own admission, it was only with the government's support that he was able to pull off the Olympics he so often heralds as one of his career's greatest accomplishments.

"Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government," Romney had said in a 2001 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing around cooperation between federal, state, local and private agencies for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

"When I came to the Games two years ago, following the revelations of bid impropriety, there was nothing which caused greater anxiety than whether or not we could count on this critical federal support," he said, before thanking both the Clinton and Bush administrations for being involved with his committee's planning efforts "every step of the way."
 Of course, everyone by now knows that Romney got over a billion dollars in aid from the Feds, but there's another bit of salience to this news. The first rule of Right Club is, you don't talk about the government's involvement in Right Club. Republicans don't mind sucking off the government's teat (whether it's state, local, or federal) for any amount of money. What they DO mind is having to acknowledge it. And here's Mitt, proudly stating that he couldn't have done what he did without the strangling arm of big government.

There sadly hasn't been much focus on Romney's big government handling of the Olympics so far, so hopefully something like this will make the issue more well known. Romney can't talk about his record as governor of Massachusetts, or his record at Bain, and his role in the Olympics was essentially his last line of defense. Without that, what else is left?

Sunday, August 5, 2012

RNC Chair: I think this president has got a problem with the American dream.

George Stephonopolous invited acerbic RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus on This Week to discuss the little feud going on between Harry Reid and Mitt Romney regarding his tax returns. He asked Preibus whether Romney should put this whole tax return business to rest by simply releasing them. Priebus provided a very interesting answer:


STEPHANOPOULOS: Setting aside Harry Reid's charges, a lot of Republicans, as you know, a lot of major figures in your party, have come forward and said that Mitt Romney should just release more of his tax returns. Wouldn't that make a lot of these questions go away?
PRIEBUS: George, here's what I think. I think this president has got a problem with the American dream. You know, when I grew up -- and I know that both Republicans and Democrats listening to this right now agree with this -- when I grew up, in a great place called Kenosha, Wisconsin, my dad was a union electrician, my mom was a realtor. We drove around town, and when my parents and we drove past a beautiful house on the corner, my parents didn't point at the house and say, hey, look at this lousy people in this beautiful house. Look at this guy and his new Corvette.
My dad did probably the same thing your dad did and a lot of dads out there. He turned around, and he said, listen, pal, if you work hard and you go to school, mom and dad, we hope you live in that house. We hope it's two times bigger than that house. That's the American dream.
And this idea that we're spending all of our time just killing people because they live the American dream and made something out of nothing and made money -- I mean, this is crazy talk. And I just think we need to get back to the issues.

Yes, Reince Priebus thinks President Obama's got a problem with the American dream, as opposed to Mitt Romney who is the living embodiment of the American dream, proving that a White male born into wealth can still make it in this world, against all odds.

Obama not only has issue with the American dream, but also with anyone else who's achieved it. He scours wealthy neighborhoods in cities like Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades as part of his socialist youth training regimen with his daughters.  Instructing them to stand in front of their windows, giving the residents stink eye until they ask them to leave, and repeating the process for every other mansion in a five mile radius (i.e. KILLING them). No doubt Obama is filled with (Marxist) RAGE at the thought that these filthy capitalist pigs live in large houses, while Obama himself will never be able to. Or something.


I'm personally not a huge fan of Republicans in general, but Priebus really grinds my gears. Every time he makes an appearance, he gives off this perpetually pissed off, douche-like vibe. At least Michael Steele had that lovable goofiness about him. Priebus is just a dick.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Memo to the Media: Newt Gingrich and The Republican Congress Did NOT Balance the Budget With Spending Cuts Only

I was watching one of the less popular MSNBC morning shows that no one really cares about that's NOT Morning Joe, and on the panel was former Newt Gingrich flak, Rick Tyler. He's been on MSNBC several times throughout the past several months, and I'm pretty sure he's a permanent fixture on the network now. It seems every time this dude's invited, he can't help but mention how his former boss balanced the budget all by his lonesome. Not only that, but he balanced it only via spending cuts with no tax increases whatsoever.

Of course, it's not really surprising Tyler would want to defend his former boss's honor, even if he has to "creatively exaggerate" if you will. The bigger problem I have is that this annoying myth about spending going down under Republicans in congress during the 90s appears to be common beltway conventional wisdom now. I've seen many, many occasions where even intelligent people who should know better are parroting this fairy tale.

So I guess it's up to me to put an end to this farce. Here's a list of the federal outlays for the entirety of the Clinton Administration, with data provided by the kind folks at the currently communist Tax Policy Center:

1993 - 1,409.4 trillion
1994 - 1,461.8 trillion
1995 - 1,515.8 trillion
1996 - 1,560.5 trillion
1997 - 1,601.1 trillion
1998 - 1,652.5 trillion
1999 - 1,701.8 trillion
2000-  1,789.0 trillion
2001 - 1,862.9 trillion

Notice how the numbers keep getting higher as you go down? There was not a single year since Republicans took over where spending was LESS than it was in the prior year. Now here's a list of the same period, but with revenues:

1993 - 1,154.3 trillion
1994 - 1,258.6 trillion
1995 - 1,351.8 trillion
1996 - 1,453.1 trillion
1997 - 1,579.2 trillion
1998 - 1,721.7 trillion
1999 - 1,827.5 trillion
2000-  2,025.2 trillion
2001 - 1,991.1 trillion

If you'll notice, the revenues kept getting higher and higher every year of Clinton's term, minus that last year, which was most  likely affected by the dot com bubble bursting. It's a very inconvenient fact, but our friends on the right would prefer it if people weren't aware that during every single one of these years (except 2001), the tax rates on the rich were higher than what we have now. Yes, that 39.6% top marginal tax rate DIDN'T in fact cause every millionaire and billionaire in the country to flee to China or Russia to escape such oppressive socialism, as the Republicans back then -among whom, was the Newtster - claimed would happen.

So take note, liberal media. Next time some asshat right winger tries to claim that Newt's Republicans balanced the budgets strictly with spending cuts, you all can point out that it's a load of malarkey.

Friday, August 3, 2012

The More I Learn About Michele Bachmann's Past, the More Things Start to Make Sense

So Rep. Michele Bachmann, a woman who was too crazy for the Manson Family, decided to comment on the death of left wing novelist and journalist, Gore Vidal, which contained this little nugget on the origin of how she became the crazy cat lady she is today:

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller’s Michelle Fields interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and asked for her opinions on the death of liberal playwright and political author Gore Vidal. Bachmann told Fields that Vidal’s “snotty, mocking attitude” made her a conservative.

Bachmann told Fields that she read Vidal’s book Burr while growing up as a young and idealistic liberal, but the tone of the author’s writing turned her off to liberalism. 

"I had been a Democrat and I’d actually worked on Jimmy Carter’s campaign and I was reading a novel by Gore Vidal and when I was reading it he was mocking the Founding Fathers and all of the sudden it just occurred to me, I set the book down on my lap, I looked out the window of a train I was riding in and I thought to myself, 'I don’t think I’m a Democrat. I think I really am a Republican'."
So Bachmann's basically saying that she completely changed her entire political philosophy and world view, not because she was introduced to any new information, or arguments, or data that made her question herself, but because she thought Vidal sounded like a dick.

It's completely unsurprising that someone like Bachmann would make such a transition for such an inane, superficial and childish reason. Yet oddly, and depressingly enough, this is still not the stupidest argument I've heard in terms of life changing decisions. So I guess that's something?

I will say this, though. Despite the fact that I find Bachmann's reason for her um...evolution, if you will (oh man), I am always fascinated at seeing people change their political or religious view points. The more extreme one tends to be before their transformation, the more intriguing it seems. My own journey towards becoming a dirty commie isn't nearly as interesting as Bachmann's. As far back as I can remember, I was generally a moderate. Religious, but open minded, not dogmatic, who had no problem tolerating people of other races and religions. This would have made me already predisposed to further brainwashing from Pro-Hitler AND Pro-Stalin forces in the Democratic Party.

Have any of you drastically changed positions on politics? Feel free to share in the comments section.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Romney's Fail Parade Continues: Praises Poland For All the Wrong Reasons

So Mitt Romney completed his worldwide, three country, comedy tour with a final stop in Poland, where he gave a speech in which he said:

"Rather than heeding the false promise of a government-dominated economy, Poland sought to stimulate innovation, attract investment, expand trade, and live within its means," Romney said in a speech in Warsaw. "Your success today is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society."
 and:
In Warsaw, Romney heaped praise on Poland, saying that it "empowered the individual, lifted the heavy hand of government, and became the fastest-growing economy in all of Europe."

 Like with many things Romney says, he  managed to neglect several, slightly important little details about Poland. Details such as:

-  The government provides families with $300 for every baby Polish mommies pop out.
-  The government fully funds State university education.
-  Poland has government expenditure as a percentage of GDP being 44%, as opposed to 41% in the U.S.
- Oh, and Poland also has universal health care.

This is really sloppy work, Mitt. Again, your campaign staff isn't competent enough to browse wikipedia for a few minutes before writing your speeches? Trust me, it'll save you a lot of aggravation in the long run.

But hey, it's not like you guys will listen to someone who's only trying to look out for you, so whatever. I look forward to Romney saying something like Afghanistan's biggest problem is that it's too secular.

Just kidding. Romney doesn't give a shit about Afghanistan.

Update: Oh and one more thing, Poland is not "living within its means" if one defines that by not having any debt whatsoever. Their debt to GDP ration is 55%. Better luck next crime, Mitt.

ads