Federal Reserve policymakers appear less inclined to launch a fresh round of monetary stimulus as the U.S. economy gradually improves, according to minutes for the central bank’s March meeting.

Economic growth has strengthened slightly, Fed officials noted, but they remained cautious about a broad pick up in U.S. activity, focusing heavily on a still elevated jobless rate.

Despite this caution, only “a couple” of members thought additional monetary stimulus might be needed to support the economy if it loses momentum or inflation remains too low for too long.

That was a much less robust showing than in January, when a few members saw a possible need for additional easing before long, while another contingent thought that stimulus might be required if economic conditions worsened.

Only last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had kept alive the idea of more stimulus when he warned business economists about the risks that long-term unemployment could lead to prolonged economic malaise in the United States. Investors had interpreted those comments as suggesting Bernanke leaned toward a third round of bond buys, known as quantitative easing or QE3.

The latest Fed’s minutes sent a different message by toning down support for further stimulus, which hammered U.S. stocks, bonds and gold, and pushing the dollar higher.

“The minutes threw water on the resurrected notion that QE3 was still very much on the table,” said Clark Yingst, chief market analyst at Joseph Gunnar & Co. in New York.

CONTINUED at Yahoo Finance.

*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..

*Taken from Yahoo Finance.

Chairman Ben Bernanke is proposing no new steps by the Federal Reserve to boost the economy while hinting that Congress may need to act to stimulate hiring and growth.

Bernanke said Friday that while record-low interest rates will promote growth over time, the weak economy requires further help in the short run. He is speaking at an annual economic conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

His speech follows news that the economy grew at an annual rate of just 1 percent this spring and 0.7 percent for the first six months of the year. Only slightly healthier expansion is foreseen for the second half.

Bernanke said he’s optimistic that the job market and the economy will return to full health in the long run.

Stocks fell lower after the speech was released. The Dow had been down about 78 points, about 0.7 percent, shortly before 10 a.m. The loss quickly extended to 180 points.

CONTINUED..

*Written by Tho Bishop.

For the second time in as many weeks Paul Krugman has pronounced the economic advantages of disaster. Last week the Noble winning economist made headlines for arguing that a fictional extraterrestrial threat would serve as an effective stimulus for the wobbly economy. Yesterday, after the 5.8 magnitude earthquake rattled the inexperienced east coast, Krugman regretted that the event was not larger and more destructive. He wrote on his twitter, “[I]n all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.” (NOTE: Krugman has since denied making this quote.)

If androids dream of electric sheep, then it seems Keynesian economists dream of alien attacks and devastating disasters. But does the Krug have a point? Wouldn’t both actions spur spending and boost GDP? Do we need a disaster to pull us out of the Krugman-dubbed “Lesser Depression”?

The answer is no. Krugman has instead demonstrated that having a Nobel Prize on your mantle does not make you immune from stumbling over basic illogic.

There is nothing revolutionary or unique about these proposals. Following Japan’s devastating March tsunami, a disaster far greater in scale than anything Krugman would ever conceive, former Team Obama member Larry Summers looked for a similar silver lining. “In the wake of the earlier Kobe earthquake Japan actually gained some economic strength,” he told CNBC.

These prominent 21st Century economists would do well to read the works of 19th Century French economist Frédéric Bastiat. In his essay That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen, Bastiat writes of a much repeated situation involving a shopkeeper whose child breaks one of his store windows. Luckily a 19th Century Paul Krugman consoles the shopkeeper by asking him, “What would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?” The destruction was a blessing! Because the shopkeeper needs a new window, the glazier gets his business and the glazier will have more money, possibly to buy from the shopkeeper’s store. Everyone wins, right?

Not so, says Bastiat:

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon [fixing the window], he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Before the accident, the community had a shop with all its windows and a shopkeeper with six francs plus the rest of his money. After the window is fixed, we have a shop with all its windows, a shopkeeper without his six francs and a glazier with an extra six francs, minus the cost of replacing the window. When something of use is broken, the value of that object to all of society is lost. Economies grow, not when spending is up, but when the value of the overall economy is up.

The problem with the logic of Krugman and Summers is that it only takes into account what is seen, not what is unseen. This is the most common economic fallacy there is. It is on display when politicians point out the fact that spending a billion dollars created 5,000 jobs paying an average salary of $60,000. It is great for those five thousand newly employed people, but their jobs cost everyone else $200,000 dollars per position. Could that money have been put to better use elsewhere?

But what about the alien attack? No destruction, just spending. Wouldn’t that bring the best of both worlds? No. Spending on what sort of goods would correlate with an alien invasion? Weapons. So everyone goes out and arms themselves to the teeth, spending a quarter of their savings on firepower. The weapons industry is rolling in cash; their employment goes up – GDP rises high. But when the aliens don’t show up, we have a populace stacked with guns they have no use for. Americans would have sacrificed a quarter of their wealth on a good that now has far less utility. Spending may have momentarily gone up, but overall value in the economy has dropped dramatically.

If plots of fake alien schemes and advocating natural disaster seems awfully strange to you, consider that this sort of asinine logic is what has driven macroeconomic philosophy in this country for decades now. It’s the logic behind the stimulus plans of both Bush and Obama. Scariest of all, Krugman and Summers are both prestigious economic professors! The men shaping the minds of the best and the brightest in the economic field actually believe this dribble.

And we wonder why the American economy is where it is?

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

So, just like with the last GOP primary debate of the 2012 presidential election cycle, I figured I would share my thoughts, my rants and my ravings about the latest debate last night. I am a bit fired up over a situation regarding how Ron Paul was treated after the election but I will write a separate article about that immediately following this one. On a side note, Bill O’Reilly wants you to go to his website because he promises the “best election coverage”. Bullshit! Fuck Bill O’Reilly! TheSwash.com is the greatest site for election coverage and pure unadulterated truth! That fucking hack doesn’t even know what Keynesian economics is! No really, he doesn’t (see for yourself here).

As far as the debate itself goes, this was by far the best one yet, minus the exclusion of Gary Johnson once again! Anyway, Fox News puts on a much better show than CNN and last night was no different. After being subjected to John King’s weird noises and horrible pop culture laced questions last round, this debate was refreshing. The best part of all was that the candidates FINALLY stopped playing nice and started taking some serious jabs at each other. The three biggest battles of the night were Bachmann v. Pawlenty, Paul v. Santorum and Gingrich v. Fox News (his employer).

In any event, the debate was much better than watching the alternative last night. All my friends were more interested in the first NFL preseason games than watching the GOP contenders fight for the top spot in a war against our current president and a culture of corruption that has given us an economy comprised of a bipolar stock market and a downgraded credit rating. But yeah, in America that shit isn’t important because a bunch of whiney overpaid prima donnas in tights and pads were playing a game that doesn’t even count for the fucking record books. People wonder why we are so fucked.

So fuck all that and let me break down the debate itself because that is what is truly important here.

2. Hour 1:

The debate immediately starts off with a question for Fox News’ second front-runner Michelle Bachmann. Her answer is typical as she is fishing for cheap pops from the crowd to start the night. Her short answer was laced with colorful regurgitated rhetoric like, “Let’s make Barack Obama a one term president!” Yay! Sorry lady, I like some of what you say but overly used catchphrases are only effective in sitcoms and comic books. Now I am not beating up on Bachmann here, she held her own for sure and did really well, especially against the attacks of Tim “Vanilla Beans” Pawlenty. I’ll get into the big battles of the night deeper into this article.

Fox News then immediately went to their handpicked primary front-runner Mitt Romney. Not only did Fox show that they were focused on pimping out Bachmann and Romney but they gave Mittens three fucking questions in a row! Three! Um.. homies, there are eight people on that stage. You should probably stop sucking Mitt’s balls out of the gate and give some time to the other candidates.

One thing I’ve noticed during this game of favoritism is that Romney and Bachmann are both placed at the very center of the stage. I’m not lobbying to be the new host of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ but I do find that a little odd with the way things have gone thus far in the debate. Moving on.

Fox News finally gets with it and moves around to ask some other candidates some questions. After the first round of uneventful answers and introductions the two guys in the lead where I sit are Ron Paul and Herman Cain. I just like what they had to say to start the night because they say things that fucking resonate. While I came to this assessment I also realized that Newt Gingrich still looks like Chucky, Rick Santorum looks like a racquetball player from a Speed Stick commercial, Jon Huntsman looks like a dapper Barney Fife and Tim Pawlenty likes to offer free services like cooking and cutting grass.

Speaking of which, T.Paw asked the audience in the arena and at home, “Where are all of Obama’s plans to fix stuff?” He said that there was nothing on his website and that the current POTUS isn’t offering any real solutions. He says that if anyone can tell him where Obama’s solutions are that he’ll either cook them dinner or cut their grass. M’kay dude, they’re in Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. Question answered! Now get working on some Chilean sea bass because I’m hungry.

The next big thing to happen was the moderator trying to stir the pot between T.Paw and Bachmann. T.Paw was asked about a negative statement he made about Bachmann but he immediately dodged the bullet, playing it safe as he always does, and flipped the script to bash Obama. There were a few cheap pops but the crowd wasn’t really pleased with the spineless swerve. Bachmann responded by running down T.Paw’s track record as governor and essentially slapped him around like a two dollar hoe. This created a mini shit storm between the two where T.Paw finally started taking shots and Bachmann just swatted him like a little fly again and again. Many pundits after the debate felt that this was bad for Bachmann, as she seemed to be stooping to a lower level, but I loved her fire and cojones. She ain’t taking no lip from some Vanilla Bean shitcock.

I do have to point out the lowest blow of the Bachmann-Pawlenty exchange though. It was definitely when T.Paw put the blame of the failed Democrat-led Congress on Bachmann’s shoulders. He essentially painted the picture that the debt crisis, Obamacare and everything else Skeletor Pelosi’s House did was somehow Bachmann’s sin to bear. Needless to say, everyone in the arena and at home saw through that bullshit. What little respect I had for Pawlenty was gone after that. The gloves were definitely off at this point and as hard as some of that rhetoric was to swallow, this sparked a change in attitude for the debate that brought out some of the candidates true colors. As far as Bachmann and Pawlenty go, I never knew Canadians could turn up the heat so much.

Chris Wallace, one of the Fox News moderators then turns the attention to Newt Gingrich and really sets off the former Speaker of the House. Wallace essentially asks Newt how he can swim when he lost the major players on his campaign staff, that his campaign has amassed a million dollars in debt and that the public perceives his campaign as a “mess”. Newt tells Wallace to stop with the “gotcha questions” and then gives him a serious earful that leaves the Fox News Sunday host nervously trying to defend his question. I’ve never seen Chris Wallace bow down like that, he’s usually able to get in there with the best of them. Newt wasn’t having any of it and for as much shit as I have talked about Newt for years, I had no choice but to respect him after the exchange with Wallace. Newt also laid the smackdown on Bret Baier and anyone else that asked him other “gotcha questions”. Newt showed that he has leadership qualities and that he wasn’t going to backtrack like a little bitch ala Pawlenty. Newt Gingrich put a smile on my face for the first time last night. Gingrich’s best line to the “gotcha” serving moderators was:

I’d love to see the rest of tonight’s debate asking us about what we would do to lead an America whose president has failed to lead, instead of playing Mickey Mouse games!

Chris Wallace then moves on to Jon Huntsman and keeps up the “gotcha questions”. He mentions that Huntsman was Obama’s Ambassador to China, that he claimed Obama’s stimulus package wasn’t big enough, that as governor he supported cap & trade and that he supports civil unions between same sex couples. Wallace then asks Huntsman if he is running for president under the wrong party banner. Huntsman doesn’t have a real answer, he just talks about his service to his country and how proud he is being the only person who perceives himself as awesome. His self-love fest is met with dead silence and absolutely no applause.

Shortly after that, Huntsman is asked about illegal immigration and goes on a rant about securing the border. Yeah dude, I want to build a spaceship out of pistachio ice cream. Nothing wrong with being a dreamer homie. All I will say about Huntsman is that he is the dumbest superhero ever! Ketchup manipulation is a lame power!

Herman Cain is then asked about questionable statements he has made in the past. His response to that is a mystery to me. Not to knock the guy, I was just distracted by how smooth and col he was. He’s twice as raw as Big Daddy Kane and as eloquent as the world’s greatest poet laureates. Cain has a way with words that most of the other candidates don’t. Essentially, Herman Cain made the silly media’s questions look like they were being asked by Dum Dums: my favorite flavor is coconut pineapple.

We then go through a rather boring phase where Ron Paul is nowhere to be seen. I am assuming he’s in the bathroom. Mitt Romney then talks about punishing businesses that hire illegals. That leads to everyone then randomly talking about moats and alligators. Lastly, Newt Gingrich proposes that we throw a bunch of Homeland Security people on the Mexican border.

Ooh.. Ron Paul is back in the mix on the illegal immigration issue and he makes some solid points. One point is that he doesn’t believe that the burden of being the immigration police shouldn’t be on the shoulders of businessmen. He then mentions that if a church feeds and helps illegals, we don’t blame the church but if a business owner does, we blame the businessman. Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned. He then flips the script on the establishment Republicans on the stage and the panel when he asks why we are more concerned with controlling borders overseas and not our own. This leads to Ron Paul pleading to the American people that it is time to bring our troops home.

After bouncing around between candidates a bit, round two of the Bachmann-Pawlenty bout kicks off. When Bachmann is confronted about questionable decisions and votes in her past, she explains that she has learned from those mistakes and that moving forward, she is sticking to her platform. While every candidate preaches this, Bachmann seems incredibly sincere and even though I am a huge skeptic when it comes to political rhetoric, for some reason I do believe her. Pawlenty jabs and jabs but comes out of this round looking like a fucking toolshed. Michele Bachmann has the ability to bring out T.Paw’s inner weasel.

During the second round of the Bachmann-Pawlenty main event, Santorum starts whining that no one is paying attention to him. He is quickly blown off and ignored again. He uses that free time to post an ad for his exercise bike on Craigslist.

The subject of the new unconstitutional Super Congress is brought up. Newt Gingrich hates the idea, as do I. Being a former Speaker of the House, there are very few people that could understand the lunacy of this idea as much as Mr. Gingrich. He goes into a great explanation of how idiotic and asinine the idea is. Newt is winning some points, as far as I see it. He’s doing pretty damn good for a guy that lost most of his posse a few months back.

T.Paw then gets back in the fray and is asked about his “Obomneycare” comment from months back that he originally caved on when in front of Romney the last debate. T.Paw then tries to take it to Mitt, feeling the testosterone from the Bachmann battle but Vanilla Bean is just too nice. It’s like he’s afraid he’ll lose a friend if he says too much. Is that a leadership quality?

This naturally flows into asking Romney about health care and his Romneycare plan versus the Obamacare plan. Of course Mittens tells us that they were different and avoids really having to break it down. He claims that he will repeal Obamacare and that it really comes down to states rights via the 10th Amendment. Romney goes on a 10th Amendment rant which is great because the 10th Amendment is fucking dope! However, hypocrisy is on the horizon as later on in the night, Romney flip-flops on the ultimate awesomeness of the 10th Amendment.

Ron Paul steps in and educates the establishment dicks on health care and it’s relation to corporatism and how that is the root of the real problem. It’s not like they are even paying attention or getting it. I mean he’s fucking nuts, right? Free market solutions to health care are just crazy. Oh wait.. the crowd roars with cheers and thunderous applause.

Rick Santorum opens his mouth and shit literally falls out. No, for real! He doesn’t “get” the Constitution and starts getting all religious and shit. This is why he won’t even come close to winning this election. He disses Ron Paul’s stance as he tries to justify his unconstitutional ideals by referencing America’s biggest tyrant of a POTUS Abraham Lincoln. Then, acting quickly, like the mainstream midgets they are, Fox News cuts to a commercial break leaving Ron Paul without the opportunity to respond to Santorum’s call for “moral enterprise”.

3. Hour 2:

We come back from commercial break and hey! Where’s Michele Bachmann? Oh, there she is strolling back on stage late. Women are never punctual! I hope this isn’t a sign of how she will run things as president. My inside source informed me that she was tearing up a dope ass crescent roll! No worries Bachmann, I can’t walk by one without having to throw down on it either.

So immediately Bret Baier decides to waste time by asking every single candidate how they feel about a potential candidate that isn’t even there, Rick Perry. Why even ask that? Well, Rick Perry is Fox News’ dream candidate, even more so than Romney. They’ve been pimping him out for months now and there isn’t a single day that goes by where someone at Fox News doesn’t give us a Rick Perry update. Fuck that douche! Ron Paul and Herman Cain ain’t worried ’bout no Rick Perry and Huntsman took a nice jab at him.

Now they name drop Sarah Palin to waste time getting the candidates take on another hypothetical. Michele Bachmann gets goofily excited and talks about how they are best friends and trade My Little Pony accessories. Newt Gingrich reminds us of another hypothetical in Rudy Giuliani. He then talks up Perry. C’mon Newtie Bootie, you were doing well thus far!

For the next segment the moderators take us into the War on Terror and foreign threats to the United States. T.Paw tries to get some cheap pops spewing the same tired rhetoric. I almost sensed that he was going to drop the word “evildoers” but lucky for us he held it back. Romney proved that he has no idea how the War on Terror works or what is really going on. He says that the people want freedom. M’kay, if that’s the case let’s get the fuck out of there and let them be free! Oh, but the Taliban will waltz right in eight seconds later. Whether that’s true or not, does that justify anymore dead soldiers? Well, most of you voting for most of these candidates seem to think so.

Newt Gingrich gets irritated with yet another “gotcha question”. He then says some stuff but I got up to get a glass of bourbon and a quesadilla. He sounded like he was bringing the fire again, which I like. Homeboy is not going to roll over and die like everyone thought he would.

As I sit back down with my 100 proof beverage and my cheesy Mexican treat, Huntsman is taking about how a cyberattack is an act of war. Shit man, hackers going ape shit means we have to blow some people up? Shit’s gonna get messy! I’m sure they are referring to Iran and China and shit but LulzSec and Anonymous are blowin’ up right now!

Now we get to some good shit, as Chris Wallace tries his “gotcha” tactics with Ron Paul in bringing up that he stated that Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons to defend themselves in a world where so many other countries have their own nukes. Ron Paul mentions that even the CIA has come out and said that there isn’t any real evidence that Iran is working on building nukes. He then uses the Cold War as an example while informing us that he served in the Air Force during the height of the Soviet threat. In regards to this he says:

We were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles. Just think of the agitation and the worry about a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries … why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off? In the Fifties, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What’s so terribly bad about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are more likely to fight them. I say a  policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.

The crowd pops like a motherfucker! Of course this was probably over the heads of most people on that stage and the moderators. In fact, Chris Wallace had to question Ron Paul on what he had just heard because in his mind, Dr. Paul must be crazy and he needed clarification. Ron Paul continued with:

Why would it be so strange if the Soviets and Chinese have nuclear weapons? We tolerated the Soviets, we didn’t attack them and they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don’t go to war against them.

Rick Santorum is apparently offended by Paul’s statements because Santorum is a whiney hoe. He then interrupts a question for Herman Cain to respond to Ron Paul. Of course he flat out lies and claims that the Iranians have killed more Americans than the Iraqis and Afghanis in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As a part of his bullshit lie, he states that we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979. Um.. no we haven’t. So Ron Paul has to quickly remind this fucktard weasel that our history with Iran goes all the way back to 1953 when we intervened and assisted a coup in Iran which eventually backfired and created the problems we have today. Santorum is a fucking moron and even with his blatant lies, he couldn’t trump the master of foreign policy, who is also the biggest anti-war voice on stage. And why does Santorum call them Erranians? Learn how to talk you simple fuck.

Michele Bachmann who is the Tea Party darling and libertarian leaning shows her true colors when she perpetuates the War on Terror hysteria that the Republicans always use. Just when you think she’s going to cross the Rubicon over to the shores of reality, she puts her foot in her mouth. Too bad for her.

All these candidates except for Paul subscribe to the theory that if we are carrying the big stick, no one else can. If you can’t see how that is the opposite of freedom and liberty than I can’t help you.

Wallace then refers to a comment made by Santorum where he said that Eric Holder must be “smoking mushrooms”. Okay dude, you really are a simple fuck Santorum! You don’t smoke fucking mushrooms! Man, I should just chill out and go drink a big glass of marijuana.

Now the moderator from the Examiner keeps saying “mooslims”. They’re not fucking cows, they’re people dummy! Then he presses Herman Cain on how he always has something to say about other religions, like Mormonism and Islam. He diplomatically explains that he wants to understand how Mormonism fits with Christianity. With Islam he states that he is against Sharia Law as the Constitution is the law of the land and we can’t strip it away in an effort to be sensitive or politically correct. Kudos sir, kudos.

Michele Bachmann then finds herself to be the victim of the strangest question of the night when the Examiner moderator asks her if she would be “submissive” to her husband. After thirty seconds of boos from the crowd and awkward silence from Bachmann she states that she respects and loves her husband. This moment was fucking weird but it gave Bachmann a window to mention her 127 kids.

Now remember when I warned you that 10th Amendment champ Mitt Romney was going to fly the hypocrisy flag earlier in this article? Well, that flag was flying high when the subject of gay marriage came up. We see through you ass clown! Now you think that this issue should be decided at the federal level? Really? Here goes another establishment dickbag trying to justify the stripping of OUR constitutional rights so he can force us to live within the rules of HIS religious faith. Typical. Fucking. Republican.

Huntsman then lets us know that he supports civil unions between gays and lesbians. He then immediately tries to trump Bachmann when he mentions his huge legion of children. After that, Ron Paul pimps out the 10th Amendment like Romney should’ve and he then warns about the actions people like Romney would like to implement. That being the action of forcing everyone to comply with their belief system and their “morals”.

Of course bitch ass whiner Santorum is disgusted and tries to drown us in more of his deluded self-righteous holier-than-thou bullshit. He brags about how he came to Iowa and got rid of three justices who supported gay marriage. Rick Santorum saved the state from man-on-man buttsex. Guys like Santorum are usually the first to sign up for amateur night at the drag show. He hates gays because he hates the part of himself that he can’t show the world. Santorum is a walking fucking tragedy. He should also put down Racquetball Weekly and read some Murray Rothbard.

Pawlenty then gets the abortion question and he states that he would punish abortion doctors but not patients seeking abortions. Yeah man, that makes perfect fucking sense. T.Paw is referred to as “the most pro-life candidate”. I think they fucked up reading their notes and they meant to say “the most pro-lame candidate”. Vanilla Bean is nowhere near as whacked as Santorum but he’s drowning in this race very quickly.

Pawlenty’s lameness is then followed by more lameness when Romney and Huntsman just give us empty insincere filler for several minutes. Off screen, Santorum is having trouble changing his tampon while he’s covered in tears.

Bachmann then gets a chance to express why she voted against the Boehner bill to raise the debt limit. Ron Paul and Herman Cain obviously get where she’s coming from as she explains why raising the debt ceiling is madness. She cites the downgraded credit rating by Standard & Poor’s as proof that she made the right decision. Cain admits that he was also against it.

Next up, Newt declares his love for having a central bank. What the fuck dude?! You were doing so goddamned well and you really just fucked up in my book. Where the hell is Andrew Jackson’s ghost to cook this turkey?! Oh wait! Ron Paul serves up some heat and educates Gingrich on why the Federal Reserve needs to be destroyed. We all know that Newt ain’t listening though.

Oh fuck! Santorum is still there? He’s against the gold standard and then takes more cheap shots at Ron Paul. Santorum is feasting on sour bitch grapes. Man the fuck up and stop being a little bitch dude! This guy looks like absolute shit at this point. People pulling for Santorum in this election need to check their ass. He’s against the gold standard?! Really?!

The debate concludes with a short exchange about education where Huntsman and Cain say that they are against No Child Left Behind. After that we are subjected to the generic closing comments we always get. Luckily we weren’t bombarded with URLs this time. Maybe they held back because Pawlenty and Santorum’s campaign managers thought it would be a waste of money to renew the domains for another year.

4. Conclusion:

This was the best debate so far in the 2012 presidential election cycle. Some people shined, a few sunk. Sure I am biased towards Ron Paul but he was under fire a lot and he continually brought it hard against all comers and made all of his points clearly. Bachmann did really well in my opinion. Gingrich didn’t make me a believer but he did win a lot of points overall. Herman Cain was good but he needs to turn it up a few notches. However, I was pleased that he wasn’t repeating his catchphrases over and over or counting down his solution talking points numerically. Because of that, Cain’s performance was an improvement over the last debate. The other four candidates can suck a dick, especially that jackass fucksack Santorum.

So without further ado, as this article’s title asks, “Who won the debate?” I do have to give you an answer. Well, after watching this damn thing three times and after taking a fuckload of notes, I gave each candidate a letter grade. Here they are from best to worst:

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B+: Michele Bachmann
Grade B: Newt Gingrich
Grade B-: Herman Cain
Grade C: Mitt Romney
Grade D+: John Hunstsman
Grade D:Tim Pawlenty
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Taken from Reuters.

* Democrats call for new stimulus

* Biden group pushes ahead in deficit-reduction talks

* CBO says benefits will swamp economy in long term (Adds quotes from Bernanke)

WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) – Democratic leaders called on Wednesday for additional spending to boost the sluggish U.S. economy, setting up a fresh hurdle for bipartisan efforts in Washington to head off a government debt default this summer.

Democrats’ demand for new stimulus spending is at odds with the work of negotiators, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who are trying to find trillions of dollars in savings as part of a deal that would allow Congress to sign off on new government borrowing before the U.S. runs out of money to pay its bills.

Those talks, which resumed on Wednesday, have largely focused on spending cuts over the next 10 years. Senate Democrats want the deal to include more money for highway construction, a payroll tax cut and clean-energy subsidies to bring down the 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Fox Nation. Video at link.

President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness met today in Durham, NC at Cree Inc., a company that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting. One of the Council’s recommendations to President Obama was to streamline the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects. It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for “months to years … and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned … I’m sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges.” At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” The Council, led by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

The Obama administration promised the Recovery Act (“the stimulus”) would prevent the jobless rate from going over 8%. It now stands at 9.1%.