Romney Addresses NAACP

Posted by Bayou Steve on July 13, 2012 (11:08AM)

First a little humor:

What was interesting in his speech was his intent if elected president to increase the number of charter schools and provide vouchers for kids to attend these schools and private schools. I believe that this will allow for increased business for those companies that provide more sophisticated teaching aids that students of these schools use.

One area of design principles being developed is ACOT2 (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today).

http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf

Very interesting and this could significantly add to the Apple revenue stream. I hope so both for my investment portfolio as well as the welfare of our students.

Posted by Patches O'Houlihan on July 13, 2012 (02:01PM)

Romney would have better served himself going over the heads of the old guard in the NAACP audience and taken his message directly to blacks. The people he tried to win over are devout residents of the big government misery plantation and willingly accept their deemed position as the left's personal political property. All of that said, Romney at least deserves credit for taking a shot, maybe it's a good political move. Who knows.

But to your point, anything that increases school choice, parental control over their children's education and a shrinking of the untold billions wasted on educrats within the education establishment, all a good thing.

Posted by incubus on July 14, 2012 (01:28AM)

He's done, today was a massive campaign blunder.

Five separate major network interviews that served no purpose other than to give the Obama campaigns accusation 5X more audience....he still refuses to make his tax returns public, the more he refuses the worse it looks for him..

Career Suicide by media, he should not have done the interviews if he refuses to make his returns public.

If it had only been MSNBC viewers that knew about this controversy it might have gone away, Romney just magnified publicity for the issue to a much greater audience, offering nothing but his word as proof.

Posted by BayouSteve on July 14, 2012 (10:05AM)

Gee, you really think so? I see this entire effort by Romney as being very calculated and business like. I doubt if anyone who will decide this election is even paying attention to anything going on now.

He is slowly developing his positions on several issues and how he would see them implemented. I really love the "outrage" over his tax returns. I can assure you he has a room full of tax experts handling his taxes.

In the meantime, President Obama and his administration look quite desperate trying to explain why he doesn't know how to lead a nation.

My Tea Party friends are just getting started as well. At the end of this month, there will be a special referendum on a transportation infrastructure sales tax for many counties surrounding Atlanta. It will go down in flames because it is ill conceived and doesn't address the real problems in how money is raised and spent. By September, we will be in full force conducting voter registrations and Town Hall meetings for candidates who support Tea Party ideals.

Posted by Patches O'Houlihan on July 15, 2012 (02:10PM)

Keep in mind, "left libertarian" Incubus is rooting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, so he wants to see Comrade Romney fail. It's not like he wants Comrade Obama to win or anything.

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (02:47PM)

Patches O'Houlihan said: Keep in mind, "left libertarian" Incubus is rooting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, so he wants to see Comrade Romney fail. It's not like he wants Comrade Obama to win or anything.

Patchy, a Libertarian is neutral - opposed to either right or left totalitarianism, to a far right gun toting wacko such as yourself, anything left of Hitler is a Liberal.

.

Posted by Patches O'Houlihan on July 15, 2012 (04:46PM)

LOL, I agree. And that's precisely the point that you are unable to grasp when you call yourself a "left Libertarian"

And by all means continue into the abyss with your obsession with calling me a Neo Nazi. Just more prima facie evidence that you're a leftist who apparently has an issue identifying himself as such while he wants people to be "free" with more and more government control over their lives

Posted by stoicathos on July 15, 2012 (05:33PM)

Romney hit a home run with this speech. It allayed many concerns from the right and the independents that he wasn't going to really stand for anything and just be a flip flopping politician, pandering to every group. He went in there knowing full well that he would get booed at some points and did it anyway, and while many in the leftist NAACP audience are unlikely to change their vote (although he did get a standing ovation), the greater audience outside of that room has more confidence in him that before.

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (05:47PM)

Patches O'Houlihan said: LOL, I agree. And that's precisely the point that you are unable to grasp when you call yourself a "left Libertarian"

Milton Friedman opposed ANY concentration of power or monopoly over Democracy & the free market, not just government.

Stalin, Hitler & Mussolini never considered their own ideology was too far extreme left or right..

To Stalin, everything else looked right wing, all profit was evil & greedy.

To Hitler or Mussolini, all government aid or equal treatment to "lesser" classes was Socialist or Communism, every act of Government intervention in Social Darwinism was evil communist, or Socialism.

The Libertarian opposes both extremes, and neither extreme ever truly recognizes itself as such....which brings us to you.

Obama is a moderate Democrat, a sure sign of extremism is when someone cannot to recognize that.

Extreme right doesn't recognize that Mussolini's corporatism is not Democracy.

Heck, you're probably one of those nut-jobs that concludes use of the word "republic" in the Constitution means we're not a Democracy.

At the time it was written, "Republic" was a word that defined a Democratic government that answered to its people.

Posted by stoicathos on July 15, 2012 (06:00PM)

Claiming Obama to be a Moderate Democrat is a sure sign of extremism.

Since when is it moderate to put another 1/6th of the US economy under the control of a Czar, like he did with Obamacare. Have you looked at that so called "law"? It's not even a law in the traditional sense of the word but a power grab of the central government. It doesn't state what will actually be done for the most part, it's a bunch of statements beginning with "the Secretary shall determine..." or "The Secretary shall promulgate..."

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (06:19PM)

stoicathos said: Claiming Obama to be a Moderate Democrat is a sure sign of extremism.

Since when is it moderate to put another 1/6th of the US economy under the control of a Czar, like he did with Obamacare. Have you looked at that so called "law"? It's not even a law in the traditional sense of the word but a power grab of the central government. It doesn't state what will actually be done for the most part, it's a bunch of statements beginning with "the Secretary shall determine..." or "The Secretary shall promulgate..."

I agree, his intent was to send a message to the base, the smirk on his face spoke volumes.

This coincides with ALEC attempts to purge votes from low income, student and senior citizens in swing states, they tend to vote in tandem with the NAACP and this strategy is what worked in Bush V Gore in FLA, just enough votes were purged by Jeb Bush to make it a tight race.

Posted by Bayou Steve on July 15, 2012 (07:14PM)

The laws of the land apply to everyone or at least they are suppose to. Several states have to deal with dead people voting, convicted felons voting, and non-citizens voting. Purging voter roles is a normal consequence of our system. I challenge you to produce a case in court where someone who should be able to vote had the ability removed at the point of a gun. By allowing people who do not have the right to vote to have a say in our system truly destroys the entire notion of one person - one vote.

50 people were convicted in Texas for voter fraud since the last election. To allow anyone to vote because of Jim Crow taxes is now a crackpot's (I am thinking Holder) excuse for supporting the Obama agenda. I will agree with one liberal hack's opinion I heard this past weekend. Most of the felons in the US are lower income citizens who lost their rights infringing on another citizen's rights. From a % standpoint the higher percentages are minorities so they have been disenfranchised.

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (07:57PM)

stoicathos said:Since when is it moderate to put another 1/6th of the US economy under the control of a Czar, ....

Obama, the only president to appoint a Czar?

See my point?

By all means, observe the shadows on the wall of your cave, but please, turn around every so often to see who's casting them.

Posted by OldFart on July 15, 2012 (08:08PM)

oh, well we the out of cycle guy

What's a sweetheart like you doing in a dump like this?

Posted by stoicathos on July 15, 2012 (08:19PM)

incubus said:
stoicathos said:Since when is it moderate to put another 1/6th of the US economy under the control of a Czar, ....
Obama, the only president to appoint a Czar?

See my point?

By all means, observe the shadows on the wall of your cave, but please, turn around every so often to see who's casting them.

No, I won't see your point until you make one.

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (08:34PM)

stoicathos said:
No, I won't see your point until you make one.

I was fully unaware that Obama was the sole originator of Czars, and that Obama was the only president to appoint regulators.

So now, let's set the bar that any president or politician that appoints a regulator is a Liberal, Socialist or Communist.

Therefore, all regulation, all tax or entitlement expenditure is Socialism, Liberalism, or Communism.

The only truly "free" society is one of perfect Social Darwinism, where the wealthy reign over Democratic process and the impoverished meet their duly earned fate.

If you lost a job, a home, your pension in the CDO/sub-prime scam, it's your own fault for not being smart enough to have seen it coming, nor tax the banks exec's any higher than 15%

Nor should we regulate banks, healthcare, or any sector, that's "socialism" - eh?

You?, Me?. We're not worthy of such liberty, ours is a birthright of service to the Koch Empires & banking cartels of the world.

Posted by stoicathos on July 15, 2012 (08:40PM)

Cute, but I still don't see your point. I also think that you would really benefit from the intellectual exercise of forming a cogent argument once in a while.

Posted by incubus on July 15, 2012 (08:55PM)

You refuse to see my point, there's a distinction.

One of the worst & most costly policies in US history, the War on drugs, Drug Czar appointed by Reagan, apparently he's a Liberal too.

You then obsess over a fragment of this observation, that healthcare represents 1/16th of the economy, yet completely ignore that's the exact reason we need regulation for the sector.

Therein lies the problem, healthcare should not account for so large a fraction of any economy, no more the TBTF banks should account for too lopsided a portion of our GDP.

Obama is a moderate Dem, by comparison Teddy Roosevelt would be a Liberal.

Posted by Patches O'Houlihan on July 15, 2012 (09:22PM)

Well there's no point in responding to your nonsensical rants about "concentration of power" and whatnot, suffice to say you present false premises as usual. Libertarians are for..... big surprise!! Liberty! Suggesting any Libertarian would be in favor of a "concentration of power" that restricts their liberty is ridiculous. And your claim to be the anointed who can determine "good" concentration of power (government) from "bad" (presumably "big oil", "big business" or whatever the boogeyman of the day is) is far more ridiculous.

Now, I will proudly admit to being a "nut-job" who does in fact make a clear distinction between what the United States is (a constitutional republic), and what it's not (a democracy). See, in a democracy it's majority rules, for example if incubus and his leftist friends constitute a simple majority and vote for government to shoot me dead, that's it. I'm a goner. But in this constitutional republic of ours I have a few rights, and if incubus and his leftist friends constitute a 99% majority I still survive. Now I will grant you that decades of horrible legislation and malfunctioning courts have rendered the Constitution essentially worthless, but that doesn't change the simple fact that there's a huge difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

This is getting too easy.

Posted by Patches O'Houlihan on July 15, 2012 (09:27PM)

stoicathos said: Claiming Obama to be a Moderate Democrat is a sure sign of extremism.

Since when is it moderate to put another 1/6th of the US economy under the control of a Czar, like he did with Obamacare. Have you looked at that so called "law"? It's not even a law in the traditional sense of the word but a power grab of the central government. It doesn't state what will actually be done for the most part, it's a bunch of statements beginning with "the Secretary shall determine..." or "The Secretary shall promulgate..."

It's simple. Leftists are smarter than the rest of us, they are the anointed. If you don't agree, you are "extreme". Looks to me like you've figured out the great incubus as I have, the "left libertarian" wails about "concentrations of power" while insisting that power concentrated in government will work, it really, really will! Go forth and be free, Americans, but not before you look over these 30,000 pages of rules, regulations, promulgations, taxes and anything else put forth by your betters in government, that demand your full compliance!

Romney Addresses NAACP

Recent posts

Whoops. You need to be signed in to do that.