*Written by Rob Rimes.

Introduction:

I don’t hate Mitt Romney but I am certainly not a fan, which should be obvious at this point. I do hate the goddamned media for giving him an unfair advantage over the other candidates but truthfully, that isn’t his fault. Romney isn’t the absolute worst presidential choice out there, which many of my colleagues and readers may disagree with vehemently, but he is still a progressive statist bastard that is hellbent on controlling the lives of all of us in an effort to keep the giant wheel of the establishment machine rolling. I have been nasty to the guy many times in my countless diatribes about the 2012 election but my distaste and malcontent has been for a very good reason. Point being, I know that Romney can’t save this country and I feel that this is painstakingly obvious even though I find myself completely befuddled over the fanfare and support that this guy gets, not just form the media – their support is understandable, but from the conservative voting public who are all pretty much in unison behind this guy’s idea of smaller government, less taxes and squashing the budding police state. This guy will not solve any of those problems. In fact, he will only magnify them and dig our giant pit of legislative bullshit deeper and deeper. Hell, the pit is practically bottomless at this point but electing Mitt Romney will only solidify that fact even further.

I’m certainly not saying that Obama is a better choice out of the two. Realistically, I don’t think there is much difference between one or the other. This is a prime example of there being just one big government party with two wings: one that wears blue shirts with donkeys on them and one that wears red shirts with elephants on them. The worst part about this is that most “conservatives” are following Romney, as well as Gingrich and Santorum, believing in the hypocritical rhetoric that they’ve got a small government guy on their side who will fight for them. Realistically, those who support these guys are ignorant in economics and foreign policy. It is incredibly unfortunate but as Ron Paul said in a recent debate, “Conservatives have lost their way.”

Now I can’t completely cover every negative thing on Romney’s record, as there is a lot, but I am going to talk about a few points. In the end, it is really your decision as to where you want to put your vote but you really need to think this through and ask yourself where you want to be in four years. Do you want to be climbing out of the hole or do you want to be yelling at the guys that are still digging and digging?

Smaller Government:

The first thing worth getting into is definitely the issue of Mitt claiming that he’ll work towards making government smaller. Mitt Romney, who has preached for this over the course of all these debates, has a really shitty record of practicing what he’s been preaching. In reality, Mitt has been feeding into the desires of the voter base and has been stringing them along with his version of the popular rhetoric of the day. The sad thing is that many of the people who support this douchenugget are taking all this bullshit at face value and not looking at reality. Truthfully, maybe Romney actually believes his empty words and his supporters might not be adept enough to see through the Orwellian doublespeak. Let me rundown his track record of big government bullshit by ripping the fucking band-aid off: exposing the man’s economic sores.

I could write a whole damn article about the monstrosity that is Romneycare but I won’t bore you or myself with the details that have already been recycled a million times and beaten into the ground with Thor’s hammer by every critic for several years now. I’m over the Romneycare issue personally. I don’t like it, I think it’s shit, it was the blueprint for what became Obamacare but it was done at the state level, not the federal level and most Bay Staters still approve of it, so that is their economic cross to bear.

One thing that many Romney supporters don’t know or just choose to ignore is the fact that he significantly raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor. While preaching fiscal conservatism and pimping himself out as friendly to business, Governor Romney increased the tax bill on businesses by $300 million! He and his cronies also approved hundreds of millions of dollars worth of higher fees and fines on businesses in just four years! Many business owners were incredibly dissatisfied with Romney as governor. Essentially, corporate taxes under Romney almost doubled in just his one term.

I guess the tax hikes were necessary though, as Romney drastically increased spending in Massachusetts. In 2006, Ol’ Mittens increased spending in just that year by 7.6 percent. In 2007, he increased spending again, this time all the way up to 10.2 percent. During just his four years in office, he increased state spending by a total of 20.7 percent! That’s a lot of debt thrown on the taxpayer but at least those hefty tax hikes on corporations absorbed some of the burden. Maybe this tax burden accounts for the fact that Mitt Romney managed the 47th ranked state, out of 50, in the realm of job creation. That brings me to my next point.

Romney has been touting his job creation success while working at Bain Capital. He proudly boasts about creating corporations like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics, all of which have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, as governor, unemployment was a real problem in Massachusetts. Sure, he did great in the private sector and as Romney himself has said, “Jobs are created in the private sector.” However, all of his job creation skills didn’t translate to success when he reached office. So what makes the public think that this job magician’s magic wand will suddenly work this time? Yes he is a self-professed business master but he couldn’t tap into that while running Massachusetts so essentially his trial run at it was a failure. On the issue of Romney’s job creation woes, Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends wrote:

During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.

The question no one ever seems to ask Governor Romney is how many jobs were destroyed in an effort to build his monstrous corporations. Now I am not attacking him for building giant successful businesses, as that is the nature of the beast – good or bad. I am just trying to point out how skewed these sorts of statistical claims are because if you created say 300,000 jobs but your new businesses eliminated the jobs of say 250,000 people whose businesses you closed down through competition, well then you’ve only really created 50,000 jobs. This is a simple ballpark example but it should show you how some statistical claims can be made when you only tell one side of the story. Hell, government has been using these sorts of statistical tactics for years when releasing inaccurate numbers to sway public opinion for a candidate, a bill or whatever else they have needed public approval on.

Another issue that shows how non-small government this ass clown is, is the TARP bailouts. Mittens hates when people bring the subject up and has gone as far as lying and completely denying that he ever supported it but there is tons and tons of evidence that says otherwise. In fact, Romney was incredibly passionate about poorly run banks getting a massive taxpayer funded bonus for sucking at business. On CNN, a few years back during the bailouts, Romney said:

I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion dollars a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

Sounds like small government to me! So why would he be so pro-big bank? Well, let’s look at his top campaign contributors from a recent list. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs who gave $354,700. Next up is Credit Suisse Group at $195,250 and Morgan Stanley at $185,800. Every other contributor in the six figures is also in the banking industry. You’ve got HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp. & JPMorgan Chase. His top ten contributors are all fucking banks! Occupying Wall Street should start on Mitt’s front lawn! This shows a sharp contrast from Ron Paul whose top three campaign contributors are the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. Paul’s biggest contributor is also a lot less than six figures. So who really understands the plight of the average person? Romney is so far up on the Wall Street crony capitalist ladder than he can’t remember how to get down – not that he wants to.

People that call Barack Obama the Wall Street president haven’t seen anything yet. On campaign contributions from the big banks, Obama has made significantly less than Romney. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $49,124, Morgan Stanley coughed up $28,225, Bank of America gave $46,699, JPMorgan Chase came in at $38,038 and Citigroup was at $36,887. You do the math but it is obvious who the bailed out banking industry supports.

Another thing worth noting is that Romney has gotten more money from lobbyists than all other Republican candidates combined. I guess you need all that special interest money to work towards smaller government. Damn it! That Mitt Romney doublethink is taking over my brain!

The fact of the matter is, love it or hate it, Mitt Romney has a proven track record of being nothing less than one of the heads on the big government hydra. He is an economic nightmare but because people take him at his word and don’t look at his record, he can continue to dupe the masses into thinking that he’s on their side.

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

Continued in Part II: Foreign Entanglements..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Let me start by saying that even though I’ve referred to other debates as the worst, this one definitely took the cake and showed us just how godawful these things can be. This debate came to us from Tampa, Florida and was hosted by NBC. Brian Williams was the moderator and he was a shitty one at that. To start, there were no intros and the audience was not allowed to participate in any way. This means that the crowd could not applaud, boo or get fired up like they have in most previous debates. While I understand that this is done to speed up the process and fit in more quality time with the candidates, it creates bad television and boring debates, especially when the candidates argue incessantly for long periods of time and the moderator is too chicken shit to break it up and stick to his own rules regarding time. My biggest regret about watching this goddamned thing is that I only had one beer in the whole fucking house. I was also too lethargic from a 20 oz. New York strip to get up and mix a stronger drink. At least the ecstasy I got from my giant piece of premium American red meat kept me from losing my shit and going completely insane throughout this episode of ‘Three Statists and a Constitutionalist’.

So we start with Newt Gingrich being asked to respond to Mitt Romney recently calling him “erratic” and a “failed leader”. Woohoo! Here we go already starting with the personal attacks over policy issues. Gingrich immediately dropped several Reagan references and was shocked that he didn’t get any applause. Oh yes, the crowd must stay silent or be forced to stare into the droopy eyes of Brian Williams who has been known to turn people into hipster liberals with just a quick glare. This didn’t bode well for Newt as he was waiting for the crowd to react to his empty one-liners. Gingrich said he was like Reagan, who ignored Carter and went on to win the election. Really Newt? You’re ignoring the attacks against you? Funny, because every show I’ve seen you on, you’ve just gone on and on about all the attacks against you.

Gingrich is immediately given a second question, as Williams asks him how he has changed since being Speaker of the House. Gingrich says that as Speaker he had four consecutive balanced budgets, which he says is unheard of. He also brags about how many jobs he created and how he reformed welfare. This is also funny because in a recent interview he took the Romney approach and said government doesn’t create jobs the private sector does. So which is it Newt?

Brian Williams then directs his attention to Mitt and I can already tell that Paul and Santorum are probably going to get the shaft on time this round. Romney is asked if he is electable, which is a dumb fucking question. It’s a dumb question when anyone is asked this, really. Romney talks about how he saved the Olympics and created tons of businesses. He doesn’t actually answer the question he just runs through his already well-known yet well-rehersed talking points. He then switches to attacks on Gingrich and disses him for talking bad about the Paul Ryan Plan and for aligning with Nancy Pelosi on several occasions.

Newt Gingrich says that he isn’t going to spend the entire evening “chasing Mitt’s misinformation.” Yes he will, just keep reading. Gingrich says that the American people need a discussion on how the candidates are going to beat Obama and that they need to move passed the bullshit. Romney jumps in and points out that 88 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against Newt, which caused him to resign from his position in disgrace. Mitt also points out that Newt’s approval rating when he left Congress was 18 percent. Romney then takes a stiff shot at Gingrich when he says that we can’t retake the White House if the person leading the fight was in the pocket of Freddie Mac. This fight then goes on forever and Brian Williams just lets them duke it out regardless of time restraints and the fact that there are other candidates who haven’t even talked yet. Gingrich tries to explain how he left Congress, which is all bullshit and just leads to him arguing with Romney over who has the most inaccurate attack ads. I thought you were ignoring the attacks and weren’t going to spend the evening “chasing Mitt’s misinformation”? Can we please discuss the real issues?!

Rick Santorum finally gets asked a question and as much as I loathe the guy, I’m glad to see him at this point. Of course he is asked to comment on the Romney-Gingrich spat because Brian Williams wants the two feuding idiots to be front and center to help discredit the GOP as a whole. Santorum rambles some nonsense about painting a positive vision for the country and adds that he creates a real contrast to Mitt and Newt. Um, not really homeboy unless you’re referring to the religio-fascist part. Santorum then claims to “..have a track record of being a strong conservative.” Well that depends on what your definition of a conservative is, as it varies greatly from candidate to candidate.

Brian Williams then takes a shot at Santorum and says that he lost his seat in the Senate by 18 percent. This was of course after Santorum bragged about winning the seat in a liberal state. Santorum responds to the criticism by saying that the Republican governor in Pennsylvania lost worse than he did that same year. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Santorum also physically crouched down when he was rambling incoherently and actually said the word “crouch down”. Thanks for the visual buddy.

Finally Ron Paul gets brought into this thing! Williams reminds us that Paul once said that he never visualized himself as winning the nomination so why does he think he can win now. Paul says that he doesn’t sit around and dream about being in the White House like everyone else on stage. He points out that, according to polls, when he is put head-to-head with Obama he has a better chance at beating him than anyone else in the GOP. Paul also clues the masses into the fact that Iowa was just a straw poll and the real winner hasn’t yet been decided, as it will be the person who acquires the most delegates. He’s asked if he will run third party because every goddamned moderator has to seemingly ask this question. Once again, Ron Paul says that he has no intentions to do so. He is then asked if he would ever support Newt. Paul gives Gingrich props on his stance with the Federal Reserve and the gold standard but adds that he needs to change his stance on foreign policy. Newt responds by giving Paul some props on economic issues.

They then get into the boring topic of Mitt Romney’s tax returns which just shifts all the attention back to Tweedledum and Tweedledumber – that being Romney and Gingrich, you can choose which is which. Romney says that his income tax info will show how he made profits and rewards. He then goes on to claim that he’ll drop corporate tax rates while reshaping the entire tax code in an effort to simplify it. Gingrich jumps in and channels Mitt’s dad, who released a dozen years worth of tax information. Newt then says something about a Hong Kong tax model. This guy’s always pulling obscure shit from other countries. Romney jumps back in and says he and his father disagreed on many things and unlike his dad, he will only release a few years worth of his personal tax data. Romney then goes on to say that he inherited nothing and made his own mark in the world. He name drops Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics as ten minutes have passed without mentioning them. Truthfully, I think everything Mitt says is a pre-recorded statement and he just moves his lips to the words.

The mic in this rap battle is then passed back over to Santorum. He takes a shot at Newt and Mitt when he says that they claim to support capitalism but how can they make that claim when they supported the bailouts. Santorum says that we should have allowed these moronic financial institutions go through bankruptcy. What some people might not know though is that Rick Santorum wasn’t in office at the time of the bailouts so he couldn’t vote on TARP; so it is easy for him to say he didn’t support it. When looking a little deeper however, Rick Santorum did support the bailout of the airline industry. So would he have really rejected TARP? Based off of the $15 billion dollar airline bailout and his past voting record with other things, Santorum looks to be a pro-TARP motherfucker. Lucky for him he lost his seat in the Senate and didn’t get stuck with TARP on his record.

Newt is asked about more criticism from Mitt, who apparently claimed Gingrich “peddled influence” with Freddie Mac. Why couldn’t this be addressed the first time in this very same debate when Newt was asked to comment on Mitt’s criticisms? Time wasting bullshit! Newt said he never “peddled influence” and added that Romney’s approach about the Freddie Mac situation is nasty. Gingrich claims that he never lobbied for them and actually says that he brought in experts to teach his staff how to not lobby. Sorry, I just find that laughable. Romney quickly lashes back at Gingrich saying that Freddie Mac doesn’t pay “historians” as much as they paid Newt. Romney also points out that Gingrich was pushing GSEs every chance he got, which is a form of lobbying. Newt said he only made $35,000 per year, which is a lie. Why do people like either of these shady bastards? Aren’t Americans sick of criminals in power?

The Mitt-Newt show goes on for a long time as these two duke it out with no buzzer going off and Brian Williams sitting quiet – wasting our precious fucking time on this bitch fight. Williams, after minutes of this nonsense finally cuts in to stop it but only because NBC has to go to commercial break. Brian Williams has the spine of a squid.

After the commercial break, the issue of the housing crisis comes up. Santorum is the first person asked to address it. He claims that he saw the crisis on the horizon and tried to stop it. Yep asshole but you were about a decade behind Ron Paul on seeing it. Santorum, while explaining his fallacious knowledge on the subject, actually utters the phrase: “Let capitalism work.” Hilarious! This guy doesn’t know what capitalism is! Santorum immediately follows up his pro-capitalism line by saying that the government needs to step in and help the people who have lost their houses. Here we go with the doublespeak! Santorum continues by saying that people need the freedom to get out from under these houses and get relief. Really dude? Just “let capitalism work”?

On the same issue, Paul is asked if the government owes the people anything. Paul says that they owe the people a free market and sound money. He says that the interest rates were kept too low for far too long. Ron Paul says that he introduced legislation to help prevent the housing bubble from bursting years before it actually did. He declares that the bubble and the consequences of these actions were easy to spot but no one in Washington did. Paul says that the government needs to get out of the way. He then closes by saying that the Federal Reserve dumped so much debt on the taxpayers after wiping the slate clean with banks and corporations they bailed out.

Brian Williams, who apparently wants to suck Mitt’s dick, gives us another Mitt-Newt session when he brings them in on the housing issue. Romney says that the government has to help the people they fucked but immediately after that says that the government has to get out of it. Which is it bro? Gingrich says we need to repeal Dodd-Frank as it would improve the economy overnight. He says that the bill led big banks to get bigger. Newt is asked if the financial system is overregulated, which just proves how stupid Brian Williams is. Romney jumps back in to monopolize more time and says that the markets need regulation to work. What? What happened to capitalism? He then adds that we need up-to-date regulation not that old shitty regulation.

Williams, who wants to keep Romney in the spotlight, switches the subject and asks him about opening up Cuba. Mitt actually says that he’d be glad if Fidel Castro died and went to see his maker.. WTF?! Romney says we can’t talk about opening up Cuba but we need to support those in the country who want freedom. Okay, so how are we supporting them by contributing to making their economy shit? Why do you think that it is so easy for Castro to convince his people that America is bad? This is why! Romney wants to help Cubans by punishing them and not “giving in”.

Gingrich adds to Romney’s “glad when Castro’s dead” comment by saying that he won’t meet his maker but that he’ll essentially go to Hell. Newt starts talking about a “Cuban Spring”. He says that we need to reach out to younger Cubans who want freedom. Of course he, like Mitt, wants to do this without working with them in a productive and positive way. These guys must believe in magic.

When the discussion shifts back over to Ron Paul, he says that he has a lot to teach these guys on foreign policy. Ron Paul calls Newt and Mitt’s tactics “isolationist”. Funny watching Ron flip the script when every idiot out there calls him an “isolationist” as the idiots don’t really get what it means. Paul points out that the Cold War is over and the Cuban Missile Crisis was 50 years ago. He adds that we prop up Castro with our sanctions and embargo as it helps him stay in power by gaining support through pointing the finger of blame at the United States. Paul reminds the candidates that we used to talk to the Soviets and currently talk to the Chinese while we’ve had major problems with both. He even adds that we went in and talked to the Vietnamese after the disastrous Vietnam War. He says that we are living in the dark age if we are going to refuse to talk to Cuba.

Santorum, who apparently ignored Paul’s great insight, calls for us to use sanctions against Cuba until the Castro brothers die. He says that for right now we have to keep the current policy active and we shouldn’t embrace Cuba until the dictators are dead. Santorum then goes on a dumb tangent about how Cuba works directly with jihadists. Here we go with the fear mongering!

On Iran, Romney says we need to build a super strong military to scare the fuck out of everyone. Gingirch says that we are a country that likes peace and stability. Apparently he means between all the wars he wants to bring forth. Gingrich adds that he feels that we should defend the freedom of the sea. He then shares his thoughts on Obama, saying that Iran keeps testing us because our president is weak. Ron Paul gets in the Iran talk and says that our blockade of Iran’s strait is an act of war and tells us to imagine if the roles were reversed. Paul points out that Iran needs the Strait of Hormuz as much as we do. He warns us all that we have too many wars and the thought of invading Iran is ridiculous as we don’t have any money.

Santorum is asked how he would attack Iran when they have such a large target list. Santorum doesn’t answer that, he immediately goes right into the fear mongering he is so good at. He says that if Iran gets a nuke, the whole world will change. He then says that Obama’s Iran policy is a failure and feels that no one in power is serious about the Iranian threat. He then claims that Iran’s leadership is the equivalent to having a country ran by Al-Qaeda. He hammers the point that it is reckless to not try and stop Iran from building a nuke. He then flips the script and starts rambling about manufacturing and energy in Florida.

The candidates are then asked why it is okay for them to court voters in Spanish while they are all in favor of English as a national language. Gingrich says that the common bond that unites a country is one language. He says that there will be 300-400 languages used in the U.S. very soon so we need to unify the people with just one. Romney agrees with Newt before rambling about Massachusetts teachers teaching in other languages. Ron Paul steps in and says that we need to have one language at the national level but adds that if states want ballots in Spanish, such as Florida, it is their right to do so. Paul says that you can make English the official federal language without interfering in what the states want to do.

On illegal immigration, Newt says that the children of illegals should be allowed to join the military so they can go off and die for his senseless wars. Romney says he would not sign the DREAM Act in its current form but he would if it included military service. Romney then goes on a weird rant that illegals should “self-deport” themselves, go back to their country of origin and apply for legal citizenship. Santorum, who didn’t think the “self-deportation” comments were obscure, says that people have been self-deporting for awhile now due to our shitty economy. Santorum keeps referring to illegal immigrants as “they” as if they are something other than individuals.

Newt is asked about sugar and goes on to ramble about sugar types. Romney, who gets a bunch of money from Florida sugar farmers, says that we need to kill sugar subsidies. He then goes on a rant about homes in Florida, diverting his attention away from sugar. Romney says that too many homes in Florida are underwater. OMG! Global warming is drowning us! Oh.. wait.. that was a figure of speech.

Ron Paul is asked some dumb question about saving the Everglades and then we go to a commercial break. Why couldn’t they ask that dummy Santorum about the Everglades? He’s a snake, he’d have more invested in the issue. We also get Williams asking abut the Terry Schiavo case, which happened years ago and has nothing to do with anything that is going on right now. Gingrich and Paul address it but it is just a time-waster.

Romney is asked if space is a priority. He says “yes” but adds that Obama doesn’t have a real vision for NASA and because of that, Florida is suffering. Actually dude, I live in Florida and I’m doing okay, so don’t speak for me. Mitt says that the right mission for NASA needs to be determined by the president. Um.. I thought you were a capitalist guy? Romney then adds that NASA shouldn’t be solely funded by the government but that it should be funded by a collaborative effort of the military and companies that have ties and can benefit from the institutions work.

Keeping with Romney, he is asked what he’s done to promote conservatism. Mitt gives the stupidest answer when he says that he has created a family and worked in the private sector. Really, that’s your answer? Gingrich is then brought in and asked to comment on Mitt and replies with, “I don’t want to spend my time commenting on Mitt.” Well what the fuck was he doing the first half of this goddamned debate?! Santorum jumps in and rants and whines about a bunch of shit regarding Gingrich and Romney not being as conservative as he is.

Brian Williams then asks Ron Paul if Gingrich and Romney are insufficiently conservative. Why didn’t Williams ask if Santorum was? Ron Paul says that it all depends on what your definition of conservative is. He points out that conservatives have lost their way completely and asks how can a person be conservative when they’ll cut food stamps but won’t stop wasteful spending overseas. He adds that you can’t have smaller government if you keep creating all these wars. He also adds that you can’t promote personal liberty and then try to legislate all the crap that the GOP wants.

Mittens says that he has a solid conservative record, just look at it. Okay dickbag. He then diverts and brags about how Ted Kennedy had to take a loan out on his house to beat him in the governor’s race back in the 90′s. Yeah, he still beat you dude. He finishes his soulless rambling by saying he will repeal Obamacare and leave health care up to the states.

Gingrich is asked about his numbers being on the rise and what scares him the most about possibly becoming president. He just says that the next president will face enormous problems. No shit cuntpickle! He then warns that there are too many huge special interest groups working against the country and only for their own benefit. Somehow he expects to defeat that. This ends the debate, twenty minutes early and Brian Williams introduces NBC’s crack staff to analyze the debate for the remainder of the time. I turn off the TV.

God this shit was awful.

Grading Scale:
Grade B: Ron Paul
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Rick Santorum
Grade D-: Mitt Romney

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

It has been a long fucking journey but here we are! This is the last debate of the year as well as the last one before the first voting starts. This Fox News hosted debate was probably the most notable one for those of us who are supporters of Ron Paul. Not only did it happen at a pivotal moment during the primary presidential race but it was also Dr. Paul’s best performance yet, as far as I am concerned. Considering that some polls have Paul in second place to Newt Gingrich by only a point, there wasn’t a better time for Ron Paul to turn up the heat and make an impact: an impact so hard and solid that the Fox News fear turtles had to ignore him for the last half hour because anymore time given to Dr. Paul would have most assuredly provided him with a win over their two current golden boys: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. God forbid someone that doesn’t suck pulls out in front, right?

It’s okay though, Fox News pundits and neocon radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spent the days leading up to and the day after this debate bashing Ron Paul. The fact that they are dedicating so much time to demonizing the guy is a very very good thing. Considering there is nothing you can throw at the guy, as he is probably the most consistent candidate in at least half a century, these attempts at discrediting Ron Paul just makes these lying bastards look like idiotic assholes blinding themselves to the reality that Dr. Paul’s message is spilling over and spreading out beyond his “crazy” followers. Oh how the establishment hates not getting their way. It’s time for the brats to go to bed so mom and dad can get busy.

2. Hour 1:

At the start of the debate, I find it amusing that Bret Baier tells us that this debate is being sponsored by Fox News as I am watching it on Fox News. Um, no shit buddy. He then goes around and introduces all the candidates to the Iowa crowd. Newt Gingrich got the loudest pop but Ron Paul’s was almost as loud. Unlike other debates, everyone here got some cheers from the crowd, showing us that Iowans are pretty respectful even to the idiots. I’m not a Chris Wallace fan and Baier is okay but I am glad that Megyn Kelly, who is excruciatingly gorgeous on this night, and Neil Cavuto are on the panel of moderators. I really wish Fox News would let Judge Napolitano and John Stossel sit in with the moderators on one of these eight dozen debates. Shouldn’t the libertarian pro-constitution people be represented and allowed to ask real questions? Apparently Fox News doesn’t think so, which is why, even though they allow these guys to have shows, they keep them over on the “B” network.

The first question is already a shot at Ron Paul because they bring up the issue of electability and who could actually defeat Obama one-on-one. The thing is, contrary to what Fox News and Rush want you to believe, there have been several polls taken of GOP candidates going head-to-head with Obama and according to these various polls, Ron Paul is the only one who can convincingly beat the current president. But whatever, truth isn’t news apparently.

Anyway, after the issue of electability is brought up, Newt is basically asked to dispel concerns that people have about him not being conservative enough and not being able to topple Barry O. Newt talks about how Reagan was way behind Carter in 1980 but through debate and his message, he was able to defeat the peanut prince. Gingrich said that Reagan won on truth and honesty and that he will as well. Gingrich claims to be able to destroy Obama in debates and says that there is no way that Obama can defend his horrible record. But wait.. isn’t Newt’s record pretty fucking horrible too? He goes on to brag about balancing the budget and tells us that he gave us the largest capital gains tax cut in history back when he was running Congress. Gingrich closes it out by explaining that his record may confuse people because he changes when conditions change. Sounds like a guy that doesn’t have a real set of principles to me. It also sounds like a crock of shit so he can just brush off all the questionable non-conservative stances he’s taken over the years. I don’t know what type of car insurance Newt owns but his policies are definitely “progressive”.

Megyn Kelly asks Ron Paul to convince the crowd that he is electable and also asks him if he will support the winner of the GOP primary. So Megyn assumes Paul won’t win and she wants to basically make sure he doesn’t run as an independent. Also, as far as electability, she is obviously unaware or ignoring the polls that have said that Paul can beat Obama and she must also be ignoring the fact that this guy has been elected to political office more times than any other candidate on that stage.

Ron Paul replies by saying anyone on the stage can beat Obama. He points out that Obama is beating himself and is essentially making the race to the White House much easier for whomever ends up challenging the liberal king. Paul says that compared to the other candidates, he has something different to offer. He cites his policy positions that vastly contrast those of the Republican establishment. He mentions his stance on monetary policy, which has influenced most of the candidates on stage, and he says that he addresses the major issues that the other candidates don’t talk about.He also states that he is the one candidate that is truly pro-Constitution and pro-liberty. He finishes by reminding us that he plans to cut a trillion dollars in spending his first year in office.

Rick Santorum is asked why he isn’t surging with all the time he has spent in Iowa. He responds by saying that he is counting on Iowa to catch fire for him. Yeah bro, I’m waiting for this chick’s pussy to get wet for me but it ain’t working. You gotta make it happen man or don’t bother trying. Three hundred dollar dinners and Russell Stover samplers aren’t going to get you laid, you’ve got to play the game homie. Santorum who feels he has played the game well says that he has done 250 town hall meetings and visited all 99 counties in Iowa. Ricky Boy sounds like my old roommate who always spent money on chicks, completely missed the point and ended up marrying the first diabolical succubus that saw an opportunity to exploit his idiocy. Santorum, stealing a talking point from Ron Paul, says that he is a clear contrast to everyone else. Yeah, he’s a religiously intolerant dickbag that wants to make our country a fascist Jesus-loving dictatorship ruled over by his soft bitch fists. Racquetball Rick says that he fought for conservatism whether it was popular or unpopular, I respect his drive and his fortitude but he is wrong in almost every way and in the end, he is a clueless dolt that knows he has done everything right, even though he hasn’t, and can’t figure out why he is still sitting at the kids’ table without the respect of his peers. After all those town hall meetings in Iowa alone, the people aren’t receptive to his message. It’s time to hang it up bro.

Ron Paul-hater, Chris Wallace asks Mitt Romney what he thinks about people saying that Newt is a stronger candidate than Mitt. Romney describes people’s struggles and says that they want a president that can get America right again. He says that he understands what will and what won’t work when it comes to job creation and the economy because he has been in the private sector and ran so many successful companies for so long. He then cites the time that he passed on investing in JetBlue and calls it a mistake. He says that he has learned from his mistakes however and he knows how to apply the lessons learned from his successes and failures.

Michele Bachmann is asked how she would counter the Obama campaign if she won the nomination, as they would paint her as “too conservative”. She goes on an all-too-typical rant about how great she is and how she continually wins elections in Minnesota which is a strong liberal state. She says that even though people don’t agree with her all the time (you don’t say?) that they at least respect her sincerity and the fact that she works to serve and she is always taking action. She then says that she spent her first 50 years as a real person. Wait.. huh? Is she admitting she is not human? A reptilian, a terminator, an alien hologram or a wind-up toy maybe?

Neil “Keep it Real” Cavuto flat out asks Rick Perry how he can expect to beat Obama, when he is such a bad debater. That shit was harsh but it is a damn good question and Perry impresses me as he doesn’t get too flustered by it. Perry admits that he isn’t the best but that he has gotten to where he likes the debates and has now gotten more comfortable with them, where he was just so awkward and strange in the beginning. He then goes on some weird tangent about Tim Tebow and how they are similar because Tebow is the comeback kid and he’s a former two-time national champion, where as Rick Perry considers himself to be the “national champion of job creation”. Yes, this really happened!

Watch the video:

Jon Huntsman is asked about his record. Huntsman says that he is a consistent conservative and that he will not pander to anyone or sign silly pledges. He also says that he won’t show up at a Trump debate. He uses that to make his point that the nation has been toyed around with this entertainment politics bullshit. The office of the president isn’t something to just throw around in a silly reality show arena. He then talks about how America has been downgraded and is on the cusp of its third government shutdown. Huntsman says that we have an economic deficit and a trust deficit. He goes on to tell us that people do not trust their elected officials and therefore we need to establish term limits for Congress. He points out that Wall Street has also lost the trust of the people and says that there are too many banks that are too big to fail.

All are asked for a quick answer on how they would lead. Rick Santorum jumps back in and says that he would do what great leaders do and would solve our economic woes. He calls for free markets and free people, yet this tyrannical PATRIOT Act pimping bastard has no idea what any of that shit means. Santorum’s first executive order as president, backed by the PATRIOT Act and the new evil NDAA law, would be to label gays as terrorists and ship them off to Gitmo for the rest of their lives. Rick Perry says that after 3 years the president should have learned how to do the job. He says that we need someone with executive experience. Citing the Super Committee, Perry adds that Obama has walked away from responsibilities and dumped them on others. Mitt says that he learned how to get the respect of Democrats in Massachusetts by learning how to find common ground during a crisis. Mitt says that we need a leader that can actually lead. Newt reinforces Mitt’s points and calls Obama a “Saul Alinsky radical”. He goes on to cite his work with Reagan again. I feel like Newt is taking credit for Reagan’s leadership, which is pretty shitty. Ron Paul says that government is too big, the debt is too big and we have to cut spending NOW! He also says that there are two factions in charge of the economy: warfare and welfare. He talks about how they argue over the money and who gets it and that now it is time to end it and kill the leviathan. Michele Bachmann says that she would’ve made Congress come in and talk to her about the debt crisis. Does she think that Congress is made up of her foster kids? Is she going to ground them? Maybe she wouldn’t be able to hear them as her ears might be too far away (that is a problem for her). She says that she would put her foot down on increasing taxes. She also promises to cut spending and to support the Constitution. Well, except for those bits she doesn’t think are important like the 10th Amendment. Jon Huntsman says that leadership is action, not words. Huntsman pushes for a flat tax and talks about how it created a great business state in Utah. He says that after implementing the flat tax he got 80% of the vote in his second run for Governor because he delivered on what he promised to do.

Chris Wallace starts a segment about DC culture. He goes to Mitt and tells him that Newt believes that Romney should return the money that he took from people or something like that. The question was hard to follow but it is funny that Newt wants Mitt to return money when Newt was getting fat checks funded by American tax dollars when he was rolling with Freddie Mac. Mitt responds saying that Obama will use the same attack on him as Newt. He adds that not every business that he invested in worked out but the ones that did succeed created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Romney talks about his success with Staples and the steel company he built up. Mitt takes a shot at Obama when he says that he will ask him how well he ran General Motors after the government takeover of their business.

Newt is asked about the pro-Freddie Mac comments he made a few years back. He is also asked about how he could say that Barney Frank should go to jail when he too was involved with the same people that caused the housing bubble to burst. Gingrich says that Frank was holding elected office at the time, where he (Newt) wasn’t. Newt tries to make it clear that he was a private citizen engaged in the housing business like any other business. Newt just can’t dig himself out of this hole without sounding stupid. He claims that he always said that Freddie needed more regulations.. that’s not helping your case dude! It also doesn’t sound very conservative. Newt said that we should have a goal of helping as many Americans as possible buy homes. Jesus, Gingrich sounds like a fucking welfare state pushing progressive liberal! When it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is probably an asshole.

The moderators ask Ron Paul about his negative campaign ads against Newt. He is also asked what his thoughts are on the comments Newt just made. Paul points out that Freddie Mac was a GSE (government sponsored enterprise), which is different than a regular business or a private enterprise. Paul says that Newt was deep in a mixture of big business and big government. He needs to be held accountable for that and own up to it, it is what it is. Frankly, super debater Newt just got got. Ron Paul states that government sponsored enterprise is NOT free enterprise.

Newt poorly defends himself by saying that GSEs do a lot of good. ROFLMFAO! Gingrich cites Medicare and Medicaid as good examples. Damn, that’s hilarious Newt! I didn’t know you were doing standup at the Bijou this weekend! He also says that he doesn’t lobby for anything. Shit, the jokes keep on coming!

Michele Bachmann is asked if she has any evidence to support her recent Newt bashing. She says that her evidence is simply that she knows he cashed Freddie checks. Okay, just because you say it doesn’t make it real. Where’s the solid proof, shit I know it exists but I want to see it! Bachmann says that there is a big difference between Freddie Mac and banks, adding that Newt took $1.6 million to influence senior Republicans in Congress to keep the madness going. Haha, and Newt says he wasn’t lobbying; what do you call aggressively pushing your influence on politicians then? Bachman says that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae need to be “shut down not built up!”

Responding to the crazy woman’s attacks, Newt says that her claims are not true and that he never lobbied in any way. He tells Bachmann to have facts straight and to not throw around allegations. Bachmann snaps back saying that PolitiFact backs up her claims and she says that you don’t have to be a “lobbyist” to “peddle influence”. Newt says that his policy is to break up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He also claims that he has never once changed his positions over a payoff. Newt says that he has only worked with people who share the same values he has. Okay, so you work with snakes? Doesn’t Honey Badger eat snakes? I guess this one rolls with them.

Newt is getting a lot of time but that doesn’t stop Neil Cavuto from asking him about his negative comments regarding Paul Ryan’s plan and how he now apparently likes the plan he was critical about. Cavuto is digging into Newt’s all-too-common inconsistency on the issue. Newt says that he never referenced Ryan when he made the comments that were perceived as negative. He says that a free society needs the support of the people and he feels that when there is a potential major change on the horizon, like the Ryan Plan, that the people need to be consulted. I can’t disagree with that point.

Romney says that the spending crisis is extraordinary. He then goes on an anti-Obama rant. Closing out the rant, he says that we need to stop giving away funds when we don’t have any left to give. He continues by saying that there are 62 trillion dollars in promises that need to be quashed.

Neil Cavuto tries to “gotcha” Ron Paul when he asks him how he can be a vocal opponent of earmarks when he fights to bring money to his district. It is a good question and out of everything asked the congressman out of all of these debates, this was the best researched and thought out. Cavuto is attempting to put him on the spot and show that maybe he isn’t so consistent and might even be just a little hypocritical. However, Paul then responds and says that he has never voted for an earmark but if the government forcibly takes money away from his district (as they do all districts), then they have a right to apply for it to come back. Touché Dr. Paul, touché! Ron Paul continues by pointing out that earmarks are out of control and that the government earmarks every penny. Paul adds again that he NEVER voted for an earmark but he will fight to get back his constituents’ money back from the tyrants whenever possible.

Cavuto, apparently not getting it, presses on the issue again. Paul says that he doesn’t complain about earmarks and says that if everyone followed the Constitution like he does, then there would be no earmarks. Ron Paul says that as president he wouldn’t look for more power. He doesn’t want to police the world or the economy and says that too many people want a super powerful president and that that mentality is just wrong.

Moving on, Cavuto basically asks Perry if he’s a hypocrite. I don’t really get Cavuto’s point and neither does Perry as he just praises himself. He says that his programs have worked and that he didn’t bail them out. He then says that we need to talk about overhauling DC and cut Congress’ time back so that they can go home and live within the same walls that the American people do. When asked about how many days Congress should work Perry says, “140 days every two years like they do in Texas.”

Jon Huntsman is asked how he would respond to childish moves by China on trade rules. The former ambassador to China says that he would work towards building relationships and respect. He says that he already did a great job with it as ambassador. Huntsman says that we need shared values infused in our relationship with China based in democracy and human rights. He then calls for a greater tolerance of other religions on our part.

On foreign business affairs, Santorum is asked if he would give companies a tax holiday for staying in the United States. Santorum says that if outside companies bring money back and invest it in America, he’d charge them zero tax. He adds that we are no longer competitive. He blames corporate tax saying that there is a big differential between us and our top 9 economic competitors. Santorum says he would use his executive power to repeal anything he sees as anti-business. Yep, he’s still a power-hungry douchenugget.

Trying to tap into his business knowledge, Mitt is asked what industry will create the most jobs in next ten years. Mitt says that the free market will decide that. Sure, if we stay out of it. He goes on to talk about the fact that when the government picks the winners, we all lose. “Let the markets decide!” I don’t know if Mitt is capable of a hands off approach however. Mitt believes that manufacturing in the U.S. will come back again. He also says that our energy capabilities are extraordinary and tells us that Obama prevents that industry’s growth with his idiocy over the BP oil spill issue issue as well as the recent pipeline controversy.

Megyn Kelly asks Newt about his plan to subpoena judges who make decisions he doesn’t like. She asks if it removes checks and balances. She tells him that his critics consider such a proposal to be “dangerous” and “ridiculous”. Newt says that that sort of talk is arrogant and ignorant, uh.. okay buddy. He also says that judges against “One Nation under God” should not work in the courts. He calls that motto “the core base of American exceptionalism”. Newt adds that we do not have a judicial dictatorship and points to Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln to give examples as to why his stance is okay.

Newt-hater Bachmann is asked if the 9th circuit should be abolished and if it was, what would happen if a Democrat came into power after a Republican president. Bachmann replies by saying that the judges have to follow the Constitution. She says that the president and Congress need to take their authority back from the courts. Bachmann says that the Founding Fathers wanted the courts to be the least powerful governing body in the system. She then gives props to Iowa for attacking gay marriage. She loves how Iowans got rid of pro-gay rights judges. What a bitch.

Ron Paul is asked if Newt is right in his stance regarding judges. Paul says that if a judge is unethical, the proper procedure is impeachment not subpoenaing judges in front of Congress. He also says that it is frustrating but we can’t just get rid of courts because we don’t like how they rule on something. He believes that Newt’s viewpoint on the issue is like opening a can or worms. Ron Paul reminds us that the Founding Fathers wanted a seperation of powers.

The moderators move to Mitt, who is asked about why he nominated Democrat judges in Massachusetts and because of that, how can Republicans trust him to make the right decisions on nominating Supreme Court justices. He clarifies that he didn’t appoint the Democratic judges but that he nominated them. Since the board that appointed the judges was made up of only Democrats, he says that they selected the Democratic choices over the Republican ones.

To close out the first hour of the two hour debate, Megyn Kelly asks each candidate to name their favorite current Supreme Court justice. Santorum rambles about some bullshit abortion mumbo jumbo and doesn’t really answer. When pressed to answer, after making what should’ve been a short answer into a long rant, he said, “Thomas”. Rick Perry also rambles but his rant is about ending lifetime terms for the robes. He says that his favorites are Alito, Roberts and Thomas. Mitt says a bunch of names, he may have named them all. Gingrich says that Scalia is the most intellectual of the supreme justices. Ron Paul says that they are all good and all bad in different ways. Bachmann, like Romney, names a bunch. Jon Huntsman selects Roberts and Alito as his favorites.

3. Hour 2:

Starting hour number two, Bret Baier asks Ron Paul that if he had hypothetical intel that was certain that Iran had nuclear missiles, would he invade them. He also adds that Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy is “left of Obama”. Wow, Fox News is really trying to influence their malleable viewers. Paul unfazed says that he’s running with the people, who feel as he does. He points to the fact that there is no UN evidence that supports the idea that Iran has or is building a nuclear bomb. Ron Paul tells us that this Iran talk is just war propaganda similar to the bullshit that led us into war with Iraq a decade ago. Paul says that his greatest fear is that we have a president that will overreact (like the majority of the GOPers on stage). He says that a former Israeli statesman said that it would be incredibly stupid to attack Iran over this sort of unfounded paranoia. Paul reminds us that we survived the Cold War without jumping the gun and going to war.

Baier cuts in saying that the question specifically asked what he would do if there was solid hypothetical intelligence that showed that Iran did have a bomb being built. Ron Paul says that all we are doing with our careless paranoid actions is promoting their desire for building a nuke. He clues Baier and the other candidates in on the fact that Iran is surrounded by bombs, so why wouldn’t they want one for themselves to eliminate their vulnerability? Ron Paul also points out that we respect those with bombs better than those without them. He brings us back to when we convinced Libya to get rid of their bombs and once that was done, there was nothing to stop us from invading them, which we did.

Bret Baier, getting flustered, asks Dr. Paul his thoughts on Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Paul says that all we talk about is “When are we (the West) going to bomb Iran”. He continues by essentially asking why wouldn’t they close the strait to screw us on oil if we just keep threatening an attack against them. What Paul is saying is that they have a right to defend themselves however they see fit and if we are going to keep bullying them and threatening them from afar, why shouldn’t they take action and prepare for the possibility of our threats becoming promises. Speaking to his sanction-happy colleagues and the moderators, he calls their proposed sanctions an act of war. Ron Paul finishes up with his Iran points by saying that it is time for us to use diplomacy for once.

Still aggravated by Ron Paul, Bret Baier goes to establishment “bomb’m all!” cockpuppet Rick Santorum. Ricky Boy goes on and on about “Damn mooozlums! Damn Eeeranians! Radical theocracy! Al-Qaedaists! Destruction! Anti-Jesusers! Martyrdom! Bleh!!!” That’s basically all I heard.

Mitt is asked about his comments on Obama where he said that the president was weak in his handling of Iran capturing one of our drones. Romney explains that weakness invites aggression. He says a strong America is the greatest ally of peace. Mitt also adds that Obama believes we are entering a post-American century, where Mitt believes that America is going to continue to lead and shape the world.

Michele Bachmann is asked if she would ever send troops back to Iraq if Iran moved in. She says that Obama pulling troops out shows that he has given up on peace and is allowing Iran an open door to exploit. Bachmann then disses Ron Paul on his Iran stance. She tries to scare the shit out of our asses by saying that Iran WILL KILL Israel and us! OMG! Michele Bachmann is genuinely freaked out by everything except herself apparently. Then again, I bet whenever she sees her own shadow, she does a double take because she is paranoid that it is the ghost of Osama bin Laden trying to go somewhere her husband has never been (because he is gay if you didn’t know). She also talks about how the terrorists want to kill us because we are free. I’m so tired of that damn argument. Oh wait!

Defending himself and slamming Bachmann’s idiocy, Paul says that the terrorists don’t want to kill us because we are free. He asks why they don’t attack Switzerland and other free countries. He points out that they even explain that they want to harm us because we are bombing them. I mean, why are these conservative fucktards unable to understand this? Paul asks why are we flying drones and bombing these countries. He says that we need to stop overreacting and that we need to stay out of all these countries’ problems.

Harpie-ass Bachmann yelps like a kicked puppy and calls Paul’s stance an “underreaction!” Bleh! Ron Paul then owns Bachmann for buying into the establishment propaganda when she paints herself as a TeaParty small government conservative. Bachmann interrupts because her skin is so thin it is really just tissue paper smeared with Oil of Olay. Paul gets back on it and says that he lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and tells us how it was ended with diplomacy between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. Paul keeps slamming all the people slamming him and he keeps throwing out facts and examples that these people can’t combat! Ron Paul killed it on this night! Paul actually killed it so decisively that it must have scared the living shit out of Fox News because the moderators went on to ignore him for the remainder of the debate until the closing statements. No matter how hard they try, the mainstream media can’t beat Dr. Paul because you can only pile shit on top of truth for so long before it stands up and tosses that shit back at you. On this night, Ron Paul was chucking shit back at the lying bastards who were out to destroy him.

To stack the deck against Ron Paul, Newt is brought in by the moderators to back up the wound-licking Bachmann and the bullshit Fox News agenda. Even the great debater Newt Gingrich knows that he can’t combat Paul on this so he goes on a rant about diplomacy and communication problems and attempts to make a lame joke. The assholes in the crowd laugh.

The only other sane man in the room, Jon Huntsman says that we need to get out of this paranoid Cold War mindset. He says that we are now weak and suggests that we need to fix our shit at home. He goes on a long explanation of his point and Baier gets all pissy when the buzzer goes off. Huntsman, who isn’t going to stop talking because Baier was lenient on the time rule with the establishment candidates, continues to speak. He says that we need to adopt a foreign policy that focuses on economics, as none of these other people (excluding Paul) understands the bigger picture. The buzzer goes off again and Baier starts getting more prickish. Huntsman finishes his points.

Rick Perry is asked when he thinks America should intervene in Syria. God, Fox News is so pro-war! The whole phrasing of the question basically implies that we have to go in no matter what. Idiot Perry says that we have a muddled foreign policy and Syria needs to be knocked out of the way as they spend so much time stroking Iran’s cock.

The saving grace, Neil Cavuto moves this debate on to energy, thus freeing those of us with brain cells from hearing anymore idiocy on foreign policy. Newt is the first to get in on the energy portion of the debate. He bitches about Obama blocking the pipeline. He then shows his true dictator colors when he says that he will not back down from acheiving his objectives when they are right and the people are wrong. M’kay, so he just told of us “fuck you”.

Jon Huntsman is asked if protecting land is more important than creating jobs. He says that there has to be a balance. He also adds that we need to have a good energy relationship with Canada and that we need to disrupt the oil monopoly or else we cant have enrgy independence. Huntsman points out that we have more natural gas than the Saudi’s have oil. He promises to bring forth an aggressive energy plan that will benefit us and our allies while pushing us towards being more self-sufficient.

Bachmann is asked to explain her vocal criticism against Obama’s BP shutdown. She is also asked what would have been an acceptable period of time for drilling to cease for her to have solved the problem. That’s a dumb question that no one could answer without being in the situation and even if this happened again, the situation would be different. Bachmann says that Obama’s moratorium hurt the economy more than the disaster did. She then rants about Obama’s handling of the recent pipeline issue.

Rick Perry looking drunk or high and acting weird, talks about “laboratories of innovation”. He’s always got some great combination of words when the drugs kick in. Perry says that he helped all alternative energy industries in Texas by not picking winners and losers. He says that we need 50 states competing with each other on energy solutions as opposed to government intervention.

On the issue of the border, Perry says that if he was president, he would force his attorney general to resign immediately if he pulled some shit like Eric Holder did with Operation Fast & Furious. Perry says that Obama claims that the U.S.-Mexican border is safer than it has ever been. Perry says that his words are bullshit. Perry, based off of his personal experience, hammers down on the fact that the borders aren’t secure. He also calls for a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine. On a side note, Perry says “Hezbollah” really funny.

Santorum agrees with Perry on firing Eric Holder. He then says that we need to pay more attention to our own hemisphere. What? Really?! This warmongering bag of dicks that wants to bomb every country that has “mooozlums” and “damn gays” is saying that we need to pay more attention to our own hemisphere? Santorum needs to pay more attention to life after this race because he sure as shit ain’t going nowhere.

The moderators then pounce on Mitt and want him to explain his stance on illegals aliens, who he has said he would not hunt down and round up. Mitt says that he would create a special ID card. He says that employers would have to verify these cards before hiring. C’mon idiot, you aren’t that dense, are you? This guy thinks that businesses that hire illegals already will suddenly comply with these new laws? Hahahaha! Ever heard of paying people under the table? I’ve never met a big private sector guy that hasn’t hired illegal immigrants to move their shit to a bigger office.

Newt is asked if Mitt’s stance is realistic. Newt says that Rep. Steve King introduced something similar and then goes on to talk about using E-Verify. Newt rants about his stance and not rounding up Mexicans. He also adds that he would drop all of the federal government lawsuits against the states who are fighting immigration how they see fit. Gingrich says that he would cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities violating federal law.

Jon Huntsman says that we need to stop pandering on immigration and just do what needs to be done. He says that we have to secure the border but to not lose sight of legal immigration being an engine of economic growth. Huntsman points out that many of the Fortune 500 companies were started by former immigrants.

Chris Wallace asks Mitt Romney about his flip-flopping. He specifically points to abortion and asks Mitt why he has changed his opinion on it. Mitt says that a stem cell bill came over his desk and it made him change his stance after really studying it. He says that he was wrong and he has since tried to correct himself. Wallace tries to stump Romney like a dick by asking the original question again but this time mixing it up somewhat. It doesn’t work and really, Wallace just looks like the dumb dick that he is. Mitt is then attacked on his questionable gun rights stance for banning assault weapons. Mitt assures everyone that he is very much pro-gun. Wallace then pushes the gay rights issue on Mitt trying to “gotcha” him a fourth time. Mitt says that he doesn’t discriminate against gays. He claims that he had a gay dude in his administration when he was governor. Mitt says that he opposes same sex marriage but says that he is not against gays. That damn Orwellian doublespeak!

Ricky Santorum is asked if he believes Mitt Romney. Jesus Christ in a frying pan, Wallace is really trying to start a fight tonight! This little weasel is fucking scum. Santorum, like the bitch he is, takes the bait and says that Mitt issued gay marriage licenses as governor. Rick would know because he once inquired about it for himself. Santorum than has the goddamned balls to say that he doesn’t discriminate! Well, I guess you can say that when you don’t look at “mooozlums” and “damn gays” as human beings. To counter Rick’s argument, Mitt says that he tried to create an amendment in the Massachusetts state constitution to define marriage.

Michele Bachmann is asked about her comments on Newt being inconsistent on “life”. She says that the GOP can’t get the issue of “life” wrong in this election. Yeah, because out of everything, that is the big issue here. Bachmann doesn’t know though because she still lives in the stone age. I’m not knocking pro-life or pro-choice people but this issue has been beaten to death for decades and it needs to go on the back burner until we sort out the economy. I know that will piss off “true conservatives” and I don’t care. Just like with the immigration issue, most voters just aren’t worried about it. Glory hound whack job Bachmann finishes by saying that Newt could’ve once defunded Planned Parenthood but he didn’t. He could have also said “no” to that Filet-O-Fish he ate last week but he didn’t. Bachmann’s presence in these debates is pointless unless she is just trying to push her opponents up in the poll numbers. I don’t know how she even has 4 percent. That in and of itself is fucking scary!

Newt, after Bachmann’s crazy attack, just looks at her like she’s nuts. Newt, once again, says that her facts aren’t accurate. He explains his stance and says that he believes that life begins at conception. He adds that he was just proposing a commission to look at embryo research back in the day, which wasn’t in anyway an attempt to be pro-abortion. It was actually just an attempt to understand stem cell research and other things. Bachmann steals more time to incoherently Newt bash. Bachmann says that Newt is “outrageous” for saying her facts aren’t right. She demands to be taken seriously because she claims she is a serious candidate. Lulz.. My gin just came out of my nose. Thanks for telling us that but you’re not a serious candidate lady. Newt responds to this twit with, “Honey Badger don’t care!”

To close out the debate, the candidates are asked how they are going to try to win the nomination without weakening the other nominees. Really? Another dumb question here because these debates have been going on for over seven months! This is the last time these people will meet before the first voting begins and they are asking them this? Have they not been paying attention? These candidates have been doing their damnedest to undermine each other while pretending they are all really on the same page and just out to stomp Obama. I guess some people want you to think this is some sort of united front against Barack but it is no such thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Answering the dumb question, Santorum says, “Lets find out who has the best record and can stand up.” Um, not you dude. The guy you are referencing is Ron Paul. Rick Perry says, “Your tail needs to get kicked sometimes.” Uh, okay? Mitt says, “We can handle it” when referring to the attacks they are all giving and receiving. Newt says that he has “solutions” and everyone up there is his “friend” and would be “better” than Obama who is the real opponent. Ron Paul says that the media has a responsibility and that they are messing up this year. Bachmann talks about Reagan Vs. Carter. Ugh, whatever bitch. She says that she will be the best as she gives no props to the others. Thanks asshole. Jon Huntsman, who is the last to speak, says, “We need heightened trust and this type of debate is elevating us all.”

4. Conclusion:

The worst offense of all, to me, about this debate and the few before this is that the issue of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) hasn’t even come up. This is the most tyrannical piece of legislation to rise since the PATRIOT Act. For those that don’t know, in a nutshell, this new law allows for the detainment of American citizens without a trial. Essentially, any American the government deems a threat, under their extremely broad criteria, can be arrested and sent away to some place like Gitmo, where they will never be heard from again. 93 out of 100 senators passed this fucking monster bill yet no one is talking about it. This is much worse than ObamaCare! Conservatives don’t care though because they want us all to be jailed and chained to Bibles. Well, that is except for guys like Ron Paul who is the ONLY candidate to speak out against this evil law.

Fox News fails in their not mentioning it and in their general lack of coverage of it on their regular programming. Apart from that, my biggest complaint about the debate itself is that the moderators continually asked really long questions, as they had to give a backstory as to why they were asking each question. This wasted time and in comparison to the answer time the candidates were allowed, it seemed like the moderators were talking just as much if not more than the people running for office. I don’t remember the other Fox News debates being chock full of long-winded multilayered questions.

In the end, Paul owned this debate like a fucking gangsta and everyone else either sucked or just remained the same. Even with Fox News ignoring Dr. Paul for the last quarter, I don’t feel that it really hurt his performance. In fact, the polls right now have Ron Paul leading. Unfortunately, the shitcock establishment zombies are already out there saying that if Ron Paul wins Iowa, it will discredit Iowa. Right! So, this pivotal stop on the campaign trail that has been pounded into our heads for months and months as the biggest possible win a candidate could get on the road to the White House is now considered insignificant if the one who wins it isn’t who the establishment wants? Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck these people. In addition to that, fuck anyone buying into their bullshit! For as much as Fox News and other conservative media giants bitch about liberal bias in the media, they sure as shit are guilty of it themselves even within their own party! At least the liberals stick together like glue. Just like the old adage, if you point your fat bastard finger at someone else, you’ve got three more fat bastard fingers pointing back at you.

The establishment has never been this scared.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade B: Jon Huntsman
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Rick Perry
Grade D: Mitt Romney
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F-: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has caught the political world on fire, best demonstrated with his prominence in the latest Republican debate. Though few viewers could likely recite any answer Mitt Romney gave, anyone who follows politics has likely heard about Bachmann’s evoking the dreaded mark of the beast, or Huntsman’s latest lame attempt at a memorable debate joke. (Off topic: How pissed is he that Gary Johnson, in one debate, accomplished what Huntsman has failed to do in four months?) In spite of the attacks from his critics, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has catapulted him to the top of the polls and now even carries the support of noted economist Arthur Laffer. But is it REALLY a good idea?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a proud supporter of the FairTax movement. If you aren’t familiar with the FairTax, it is a 23% national sales tax that would replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income (for some of the finer details try Google). Of the 2012 Republican nominees, only Gary Johnson and Herman Cain has voiced support for this proposal with Cain offering the 9-9-9 plan as a transitional step towards implementation of a full FairTax. It was this very issue that initially gave me a favorable opinion of Cain’s candidacy. Unfortunately, while I sympathize with what Cain is trying to do, if the 9-9-9 plan ever became reality it would likely be one of the gravest mistakes in many decades.

On the surface there is a lot to like here. Assuming it would pass as is, 9-9-9 would completely flatten the tax code, eliminating horrific 20,000+ pages of tax code that no one truly understands. Not only would this save incalculable man hours in filling out repetitive tax forms, but millions of dollars in the cost of tax compliance for families alone. Further, with a genuinely flat tax code, lobbying will decrease as tax credits disappear. These are all reasons why I support the FairTax.

There are also a lot of poorly thought-out criticisms of 9-9-9 (and sales tax in general). Relying on the political go-to move of the demagogue, defenders of the status quo describe horror stories of poor people being forced to starve due to the added cost placed on goods with the sales tax. While it is true that a sales tax will increase the retail price of goods and services, this line of reasoning typically only looks at one side of the equation. Since payroll taxes are gone, people have more take home pay. Since corporate taxes are reduced in 9-9-9 (or eliminated completely in the FairTax), the price of producing goods goes down (which is reflected in prices). The ease of tax compliance makes administration costs go down (which is reflected in prices).

But is it regressive? Since Americans typically spend a greater amount of their income the less wealthy they are, some critics complain the tax benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rich. While it is possible that a greater percentage of income will be taxed, the less wealthy also enjoy the greatest benefits of this sort of reform. A flat 9% corporate tax attracts foreign industry more likely to employ new blue collar workers than white collar executives. No pay check withholding means working class Americans are no longer deprived of potential interest on earned wages. Most importantly, with a flat tax rate, the working class will be on the same playing field with more powerful groups who can currently take advantage of tax code loopholes though costly political manipulation. This isn’t tax regression, but tax equality.

If I can dismiss some of the most common criticism of Cain’s plan, why can’t I support it? Unfortunately 9-9-9 is dangerously naïve and tragically short-sighted.

Grover Norquist best highlighted the flaw in Cain’s proposal when he said recently, “Having three taxes, all of which can grow – it’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out, it’s much more dangerous than having one.” If you are going to open a door for government to collect revenue by way of a sales tax, you have to slam shut others. 9-9-9 leaves the income tax wide open.

Now Cain would probably respond by saying that he would never raise income taxes, and that 9-9-9 is only a stepping stone to a true sales tax. Unfortunately his word isn’t enough. Herman Cain, should he win the Presidency, won’t hold the office forever. As Obama has learned, the ability to accomplish a key campaign promise early in your presidency, doesn’t mean you will be able to follow through on others later. 9-9-9 plays a dangerous game of Trust Washington and I have no interest in playing. Though Cain’s lack of true government experience has served to be a political weapon, it is this same inexperience that may be the source of his apparently legislative naivety. I have a hard time seeing anyone familiar with Washington gridlock making a proposal heavily reliant on legislative restraint and future promise the focal point of his campaign.

Herman Cain should be celebrated for his continuing to highlight the need for serious, bold tax reform and applauded by his continued insistence to bring new proposals to the conversation. But, as Michelle Bachmann would probably delight in reminding the former CEO, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*Taken from Infowars. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

The global authority over all .com domain names, VeriSign, is demanding the power to terminate websites deemed “abusive” when ordered to by government without a court order or any kind of oversight whatsoever.

“The company said today it wants to be able to enforce the “denial, cancellation or transfer of any registration” in any of a laundry list of scenarios where a domain is deemed to be “abusive,” reports the UK Register.

Not only is VeriSign seeking the power to kill websites when ordered to by governments, but also by “quasi-governmental agencies,” which could extend as far as lobbying organizations and special interests.

CONTINUED..

You should probably read this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this to understand where my economic philosophy is coming from. Anyway, apart from reading those, you should probably already see what is wrong with this movement.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

*This is directed at those who wrote these silly demands and anyone who has adopted them as their own personal demands. I know there are good people protesting that get what’s going on. I tip my hat to the few of you.

Over the last few weeks a new movement has risen from the ashes here in America. I guess when the right has the Tea Party, it should be expected that the left would have to answer with their own grassroots movement. And like the Tea Party, this new movement known as Occupy Wall Street isn’t just comprised of one specific group of people. It is full of people from all different walks of life. There is a melting pot of several different political ideologies and I’m sure many of these people, just like the Tea Party, are convinced that they are doing the right thing to help better our country and save us all from economic peril. Unfortunately, like with many movements in this country, there seems to be some confusion between capitalism and corporatism.

Here are some of these OWS idiots that are really confused by their own maroonish doublespeak.

These people, despite their idiocy, are probably good people they are just unable to allow their view of the world to be challenged, even by logic and reason. I guess protesting blindly is easier than dealing with reality and owning up to your own responsibilities and life decisions.

As far as the OWS organization goes, I know that the “demands” of this group, as posted on their website (here) don’t necessarily fit with everyone who is out protesting against Wall Street, however this group is the driving force of this movement. They have organized this thing from the very beginning. This list of demands should scare anyone with their economic wits about them. It should really frighten anyone with a bit of common sense but I understand why these ideas are attractive to the lazy entitled fucks who chose to go to college but now can’t afford it because they are too busy sitting at rallies to go and apply for a damn job. Sitting on their asses smoking hookahs and strumming guitars with their other underachieving buddies while not even being sure what they are protesting can’t be the cause of their undoing. Nope.. it has to be Wall Street’s fault. But at least they feel good about themselves today!

Anyway, this list of demands from Occupy Wall Street is complete bullshit and doesn’t really make a lick of sense, well to a normal hardworking person that has some basic knowledge in economics anyway. So let me break it down for you line by line and explain to the unenlightened why their strategy isn’t just foolhardy, it is laughable and borderline ridiculous. The problem with it is that it reads like a series of random tweets strung together as a blog. I’ll do my best.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

M’kay.. if you can’t see all the things that are wrong with this demand I’m not sure I can help you but I’ll try.

You see, in a nutshell a “living wage” is, according to Wikipedia, “the minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime).” The needs included in this are shelter, food, utilities, transport, health care and even recreation. Essentially, a person working forty hours a week should be able to afford these things without having to get a second job.

A living wage is incredibly problematic. First of all, it doesn’t actually help the impoverished and long-term it will cause more harm than good for everyone. One of the reasons is due to the high-cost of implementing and managing this sort of legislation. Like with everything the government does, where does the money come from? It comes from the taxpayers (that’s you). However, I understand that this movement thinks that there are seemingly unlimited funds that can be ganked from evil corporations.

Truth is, even though you OWS peeps believe that corporations should be contributing to this stupid idea, they don’t have bottomless pits for pockets. To be forced to pay up in an effort to give fair living wages to those who may be less-skilled prevents a corporation from giving more money to incentivize the highly-skilled workers. Eventually, the highly- skilled workers will stop giving a fuck and no one will benefit. You can’t ride on coattails forever and without consequence.

Another problem with living wages is that if you give someone an inch (especially a lazy entitled fucksack) they are going to take seventy miles. How long would it be before lobbying groups start demanding that their products or services are essential for man’s survival. If these lobbyists succeed, which some will, how much will the living wage have to increase? It is a never-ending cycle of shit that we would never be able to shake off. Besides, all this whining about corporations and lobbyists corrupting politicians and empowering Wall Street would become pretty damn hypocritical if this is the route this takes. Just a little bit of common sense should reveal that this IS the route it would take and therefore this is completely counter-productive to what the Occupy Wall Street organizers truly want. And is that inflation that I smell? How else are you going to sustain an unsustainable economic policy?

The first demand also calls for an end to free trade and for the government to re-impose tariffs on ALL foreign goods. This is completely asinine and it is obvious that the author of these demands has never read Friedman, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek or Hazlitt. Tariffs are bad for business, as is an elimination of free trade. Not only is it bad for business but it is bad for foreign policy. It divides us from the rest of the world and builds barriers instead of bridges. When we all cooperate and have the freedom to choose who we do business with, we all win.

Tariffs do not benefit family farming and manufacturing as the above demand states. Keeping it as simple as I can, tariffs make products that reach our shores from foreign lands cost more. Who pays for that cost? You do! So does this force you to buy American? Does that really matter? Either way you are forced to pay more. This fallacy that foreign companies delivering cheap goods is somehow immoral and destructive to our economy is ridiculous. This fear of jobs being shipped overseas has become a regurgitated talking point that represents a lack of understanding of how we all benefit from free trade.

The last thing this enormous first demand calls for is a twenty dollar an hour minimum wage! What the fuck? So do you want the living wage or the minimum wage? A living wage is typically higher than a minimum wage but a twenty dollar an hour wage is insane and well beyond the amount it would take for someone to live. This calls for everyone to make a MINIMUM of $41,600 per year! There are 312,000,000 people in the United States. When you multiply the number of people by the demanded minimum yearly salary you get $12,979,200,000,000 dollars! That’s just under $13 trillion! Our entire national debt that is strangling us is $14.7 trillion! So essentially these idiots want us to somehow magically dish out almost the equivalent to our entire national debt on a yearly basis! Nope, these people are perfectly sane economic wizards.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Do I even need to tap into this one? Have you paid attention to the criticism of Obamacare over the last few years? If after just these two demands you can’t see the socialist, if not communist, tendencies of this movement, you have to be completely ignorant to the fundamentals of either philosophy. In retrospect, this is just something else that these punk ass parasites want for free without having to really work for it. The people leading this movement are calling for the government to grow exponentially in a way that will take care of absolutely every aspect of their lives. Some people just refuse to be adults and make their own mark in the world. It’s easier to have everyone else wipe your ass apparently.

But I shouldn’t be so insensitive, I shouldn’t come across as so unkind. What I should do is be tolerant of this idiocy, right? I should explain why it is not a good idea to be a complete fucking loser and a burdensome leech.

Truth is, I’ve covered the health care issue already in my article “The Five Developmental Stages of the Progressive Beast, Part V: Barack H. Obama, Hope, Change & Health Care“. I don’t really need to rewrite what I covered there in a whopping 1,900 words. I think I, as well as several dozen other writers or pundits, have been outspoken against the tyranny of universal health care for quite some time. I’m tired of beating a dead horse. Unfortunately, you still unenlightened folks aren’t tired of asking for handouts and welfare that you have no intention of ever paying back because to do so, for you, would be immoral. However, for you, it is morally right to expect others to pick up the tab because you haven’t developed the skills to compete and survive in the real world.

The thing is, universal health care isn’t going to solve anyone’s problem. Medical care is expensive, no one denies that but eliminating competition and forcing people into a poorly-run government alternative is only going to make the problem much worse. Besides, it is government involvement that makes health care expensive right now! So how is more government involvement going to fix the problem? A question I always ask is, “What has the government ever done well?” Apparently to these dreamy OWS organizers the answer is “everything”. If you want to continue down the road of crony capitalism and corporatism, go for universal health care. For this group to not see the hypocrisy of this request boggles my mind.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Man oh man, this is really their third demand. Shouldn’t this be part of the first demand that calls for a living wage? It is like the author of these demands jotted down a quick thought and forgot to re-organize this list before publishing it. In any event, I guess we are revisiting the living wage issue.

So just when you thought the living wage demand was crazy, thy are now demanding it regardless of employment! So do they want minimum wage or a living wage? Which is it? Why isn’t this made clear. I assume that the minimum wage is for those working and the living wage is for those who are or aren’t working. Am I to assume that they are calling for a collection of both? Now a living wage is usually more than a minimum wage and I broke down how much it would cost to give out their proposed minimum wage of twenty bucks an hour. So imagine getting the equivalent to twenty bucks and hour (minimum wage) and then more than twice that (living wage)! Wow! There would be no more poverty! Everyone would at least be in the middle class. Too bad no one can afford this and in the end, this would make us all dead broke.

This demand is completely and utterly preposterous! To even entertain the idea that this is somehow possible is fucking ludicrous! They might as well ask for ten bars of gold to be handed to them by leprechauns every morning they wake up and grace us with their presence.

At the end of the day, who the hell is going to work to provide for those who do not want to work? Where is the incentive? How long would it be before everyone quit to milk the living wage regardless of employment status? When no one is working, then who is paying for it? The answer: no one.

Demand four: Free college education.

Oh Jesus, here we go. Yes education is expensive but there is also education that isn’t expensive. Almost anyone can go to community college and get a good education for next to nothing compared to big universities. At the same time, who is to say that we all need college?

College isn’t for everyone but we’re all programed to accept the fact that this is what someone is supposed to do after high school, just as we’re all programed to get married, have kids and buy a house. The reason I am even using this as an example is to point out that if college is free, everyone is probably going to go. Well, maybe not everyone but a lot more people will go to free college than go to college that they’d have to pay for. While it may seem good to encourage more people to expand their education beyond the high school level, it will be our tax dollars paying for all these half-assed students looking for a free lunch.

Apart from all that, why in the hell would you want the government to handle your continued education when they can’t even effectively run the current public education system? While test scores and student performances continue to plummet, you want to introduce this system into universities? Do you really want a surgeon to cut you open that was educated by a public university? Really? You do?

Like health care, part of the reason why education is so expensive is because of government meddling and their involvement. The crony capitalism and corporatism has infiltrated the colleges and driven costs up. Basically OWS calls for an end to these things by calling for more of these things. Why? Because they don’t have a clue how this all works and really, I doubt they care.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

I had a huge article debunking all the bullshit surrounding alternative energy. Read my article “Recycled Myths & Renewable Scams” for an extensive analysis of every major alternative energy source. I’m not going to rehash all my talking points from that massive article but I will give you a brief rundown.

To start, the entire world is currently dependent on fossil fuels for everything. In fact, you can’t even create most of these other alternative energy sources without using fossil fuels in the process. Fast tracking a process to bring fossil fuels to an end makes absolutely no sense if you understand how this stuff works. OWS obviously doesn’t.

Now there is nothing wrong with trying to work towards getting away from fossil fuels but one has to be realistic about it. Every other energy source comes with its own big list of pros and cons. Just because a bag of goods is sold to you as something, doesn’t mean that the sales pitch was accurate. This is the case with most of these green energy alternatives. You have to keep in mind that the green movement has a pretty diabolical agenda but then again so does Occupy Wall Street based off of their list of demands.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

The question I have is that if they want us to use an entire trillion for infrastructure, can we subtract it from their living wage and minimum wage demands? Nope, I doubt they’d go for that. At least they don’t have a problem forcing the rest of us to pay for it.

The fact that they are asking for this makes me realize that they have no idea how much a trillion dollars really is. Do they think that Wall Street or the government can just write a trillion dollar check? They’re aware that we are already trillions in debt right? Oh but the Federal Reserve can just print more money right? Yeah, the problem with this whole movement is they don’t even know who the enemy is, more on the Fed at the end of this article.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Awesome, these parasites want us to throw around another magic trillion that we can somehow manifest from thin air. This demand is equally ridiculous as the last one and virtually the same.

Sure we need to take care of our environment but lets be real about it. Where is this money going to come from? I mean the running tab for these demands is insane and we’re only about halfway through this list here! Again, these people just don’t know how the financial system works and their impression of economics is like something from a Narnia book. I guess shit just magically appears! Must be a cool dream.

As far as the nuclear power point, again alternative energy is nowhere where it needs to be to take over.  Nuclear power may seem scary when buying into all the hype but it is an efficient source of energy and pretty damn safe when managed properly and not struck by a combination of earthquakes and tsunamis. I already debunked many of the anti-nuclear arguments in my article “Recycled Myths & Renewable Scams“.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Actually, everyone should have equal rights if they follow the Constitution. If individual rights are applied to all we would all be able to live equally. However even in the days of the Founding Fathers individual rights were grossly violated as slavery still existed. Point is, if people would respect individual rights we would all be on a level playing field. We don’t need an amendment to legislate this we just need to follow what has already been written.

What OWS is calling for here however is actually a violation of individual rights. Once again doublethink and doublespeak take over and they try to fight against what they perceive as tyranny by employing the same method that they are fighting against. Let me explain their folly.

Essentially, these guys want the government to come in and regulate fairness. This never works, in fact to force people to comply to this “fairness” and “equality” creates an imbalance by having a negative impact on the forced party’s individual and property rights. You can’t force people to play nice and to do business with each other. I mean, you can but at the end of the day it is tyrannical and it violates their constitutional rights.

This is the same argument that Barry Goldwater used, which ultimately didn’t get him elected but just like then, the people today can’t see the forest for the trees. Civil rights laws were tyrannical and monstrous and only made the leviathan bigger. This is just another classic example of how bad consequences can occur as the result of good intentions. Although these OWS shitcocks don’t care, they just want as much free shit as they can get.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

I don’t oppose this demand in theory but I do have my two cents to add. If we were to allow open borders migration, we would have to end the welfare system as it is. In fact, I wrote about this in my article “Conservatives & Aliens“. However, following the track record of this group’s demands can only lead one to the conclusion that they want to implement this with the welfare system still intact. If that were the case, this would be a fiscal nightmare!

People would flock here and our population would explode all because everyone would be trying to get a living wage as well as a job with a minimum wage of twenty bucks an hour. I laid out how horrible this would work out with our current population numbers, well imagine how bad it would be with an explosion in immigration. Again, who would pay for this? These OWS kids haven’t really thought this shit through.

Besides, eventually we would run out of money. It would happen pretty fast mind you and then where would these people go, what would we do? We’d all be poor and trapped in an overpopulated mess with a shattered economy. Wall Street would certainly fall but so would America. There is absolutely no way we could ever sustain these idiotic policies. Even a kindergarten economist should see that!

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Here’s a demand from this group that I fully agree with. In all honesty, the electoral system in this country is corrupt and time and time again these ballot machines have failed. There have been tons of issues over the years, most notably the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore and the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry. There were also some fishy outcomes during the 2010 midterm elections. Harry Reid’s sketchy victory over Sharron Angle comes to mind.

Essentially, the process we have now is pretty fucked and unreliable. It makes one think that this whole thing is rigged. Not to jump the gun or anything but what is one to think with these closed, secretive electoral processes? We need to control our votes and everything needs to be out in the open. To suggest otherwise is to accept and perpetuate electoral corruption. Why would they want it to be so shadowy if they weren’t tinkering with something? The ruling class is tricky and they will stop at nothing to dictate the direction of government.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This is beyond idiotic! In fact, this may be the dumbest damn thing on this list of demands and that’s saying a lot! Did Tyler Durden write this? At least he took the bull by the horns and took out the credit card companies like a champ. However Hollywood heroes are typically just that, Hollywood heroes. These people have obviously watched ‘Fight Club’ too many times and are convinced that this is the morally right thing to do. Ah.. that youthful angst!

So OWS really wants to erase any trace of debt whatsoever? So essentially, what they are saying is that they are unwilling to man up to their responsibilities as human beings and they are unwilling to fulfill their contractual obligations with whomever because fuck it, who wants to be forced to pay for what they use. These people are so weak and deluded that it is disgusting. Don’t give me that evil corporations preying on innocent victims bullshit, you idiots just don’t feel that you are obligated to pay the price for the things you have benefitted from. Everything should be free! So again, who the fuck is going to pay for this? Someone has to pay the debt, you can’t just wipe it out unless you intend for EVERYTHING to collapse. Are these people really this fucking ignorant?

Here’s an example. If I am a bank and a customer comes to me for a loan, I should be able to look at his credit and determine if the person deserves a loan and if they do, what the terms should be based off of their own personal fiscal responsibility. Why would I give a loan to someone who has horrible credit and who obviously doesn’t intend to pay me back?

This whole thing is so ridiculous, trying to even argue against it is pointless because the person who would support such a demand is a helpless weakling whose word is worth dirt. Man the fuck up people you’re embarrassing yourselves!

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Are you shitting me? This really just goes with the last demand and my points are virtually the same with this one. Credit agencies exist for a reason and that reason is to inform us how others we do business with handle their money. Granted credit agencies are in the pocket of Wall Street and help contribute to the corruption of corporatism but to flat out outlaw them is just careless and brainless. The pure and utter stupidity of these demands is mind-boggling!

Man oh man do these fucktards want to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever! Let’s fight for a new America where we can be free of tyranny, responsibility, obligation, tuition and our word! I’m surprised there isn’t a demand for weekly drop-offs of Slim Jims, Djarums, Sno Balls and Red Bull.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Damn it I’m spent. Do I need to rip this shit apart anymore? Unions are garbage and they stifle productivity, eliminate jobs and do way more harm than good. Not to mention that they are typically full of thugs ready to crack your skull open if you oppose them. Unions shut doors, they certainly don’t open them.

Final Statement: These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

These fuckers are so goddamned delusional that this whole laughable list has lost its charm and the funny is gone. Has a single person involved in organizing this movement and their demands ever read a real book on economics? Maybe they’re just recycling some indoctrinated bullshit that they got from some Marxist professor they don’t intend to pay. That final statement in reference to this list is so nonsensical it gave me a migraine and made me throw up a little bit.

These demands would destroy our economy, cripple our country and cost us countless jobs. We would be in one hell of a shitpickle if these totalitarian stooges had their way. It makes me wonder who is actually behind this movement because there is absolutely no mention of the Federal Reserve, who they should be fighting against instead of Wall Street. There is no mention of our involvement in all these wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. There’s no calling for Obama to be held accountable for his crimes and his involvement in Wall Street-Washington cronyism.

The best place to start looking at is at the author of this list of demands. His name is Lloyd J. Hart. Apparently he intends to go to his own rally but he needs a ride. To me that is hilarious and says so much about the cockpuppets running this show. I’m surprised the list of demands doesn’t call for free Subaru Outbacks. See for yourself in the picture to the right, that was taken from his profile on the Occupy Wall Street website. I hope you found a fucking ride Lloyd. By the way, check out his Facebook (here), which he no longer uses after trolling and spamming people while only acquiring 16 likes.

It has also come out in the last few days that people like George Soros and Van Jones are supporting Occupy Wall Street. Why is this not surprising? While they publicly offer support, I wonder if they themselves are pulling any strings?

You see people, you have to know who and what you are dealing with. I know many of you involved in this movement don’t follow this bullshit philosophy or want these moronic demands, you just want to end the tyranny that exists between Washington and Wall Street. The people organizing this want so much more however. Realistically, they are calling for pure totalitarianism. These people believe that the more the government gets involved in these matters, the better off we’ll be. Yeah, that same government that is owned by Wall Street. Do you see the hypocrisy?

The problem is, for those of you who truly want to end the tyranny of the financial system, you are fighting the wrong battle. Yes Wall Street is corrupt but the real battle that needs to be fought is with the Federal Reserve. I implore all of you that haven’t to read G. Edward Griffin’s book “The Creature From Jekyll Island“. You need to educate yourself on the tyranny and unlimited power of the Federal Reserve. Until we address the real enemy, going after Wall Street is pointless.

To those of you going down there because it just “feels right” and it “feels good”, stop being fucking joiners and spend some of that time sitting around in the park by putting a book in your hands and educating yourself on what it is you think you know. This country breeds too many weak parasites trying to suck the blood of those of us who truly work hard and earn the fruits of our labor. Don’t be one of those vampires, they are the ones who create these problems that they are trying to solve.

Not everyone is a joiner though, there are guys like the dude in the video below that give me hope because not everyone down there can be classified as blind sheep acting on an impulse.

How refreshing. At least someone down there knows the enemy.

*Taken from Bloomberg.

As a coalition led by Apple Inc. (AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG), andCisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) presses for a tax holiday on more than $1 trillion in offshore profits, it is turning to a well-positioned lobbyist: Jeffrey Forbes, once chief of staff to Max Baucus, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee.

Data compiled by Bloomberg News show that Forbes is part of an army of more than 160 lobbyists, including at least 60 who once worked for a sitting member of the House or Senate, pushing for the repatriation holiday. Their job is to persuade Congress to establish a tax break estimated to cost the U.S. government $78.7 billion over the next decade.

Independent studies have found that the last time this tax break was tried, in 2004, the bargain rate for bringing home offshore profits did little to spur hiring or domestic investment. Most of the money was used to buy back stock.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from National Journal.

Foodmakers, fast-food chains, and media companies have teamed up to battle government efforts to create voluntary nutritional guidelines for foods marketed to children, The Washington Post reports Sunday. And the group is being managed by former White House communications director Anita Dunn.

The group, called the Sensible Food Policy Coalition, includes General Mills, Kellogg, PepsiCo, and Time Warner. Disclosure records show they spent $6.6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, and the members of the group collectively have spent nearly $60 million on lobbying since the start of the Obama administration, the newspaper reports.

Media giant Viacom is one of the members. It owns the Nickelodeon television network, whose animated characters such as Dora the Explorer and SpongeBob SquarePants are featured prominently on food products marketed to children. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also weighing in.

Dunn, who is now at SKDKnickerbocker, is managing the campaign, the newspaper said. She was White House communications director under President Obama in 2009 and is married to Robert F. Bauer, the former White House counsel.

First lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her signature issue, and she has urged food manufacturers and retailers to curb the marketing of unhealthy foods.