Support NeoGAF

[polyh3dron]

Edit: Also too, Grover Norquist is (shocku) a tremendous scumbag. He quite literally implied that it's okay for grandma to die than to raise taxes on the top 2%. Holy shit.

Look for Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Norquist. It's awesome.

 

[Kosmo]

Jon Stewart destroys Chris Wallace yet again:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Glad he's being more aggressive recently.

Finally, Stewart destroys a registered Democrat! Fucking right, GO JON GO!

...sigh...

Probably the worst interview Wallace has done.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

There's no joy in being right about these kinds of things. I suppose it was inevitable that Republicans would tie a further extension of EGTRRA to raising the debt ceiling. But Obama would have probably wound up extending it anyway.

 

[Jackson50]

As I have iterated, the problem in Afghanistan is political. All the effort of U.S. soldiers and diplomats is futile if the government remains corrupt and impotent. Well...

Arrest warrant for ex-Afghan bank chief over 'fraud'

Afghan officials have issued an arrest warrant for the former governor of the central bank, Abdul Qadeer Fitrat.

He is being investigated in connection with massive fraud at the privately owned Kabul Bank and the printing of unauthorised amounts of currency.

Earlier, it emerged Mr Fitrat had fled Afghanistan for the US - he said his life was in danger for exposing fraud.

He said the Afghan government had hindered his attempts to investigate corruption.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13946328

I wasn't meaning to imply genocide as much as other serious crimes that are more than mere hyperbole, pretty much along the lines of what Rusty posted.

I understand. Moreover, I do not wish to diminish those crimes. But those were not the charges being presented before our intervention. People referenced and alluded to genocide to make the situation appear direr than it was.

 

[Kosmo]

As I have iterated, the problem in Afghanistan is political. All the effort of U.S. soldiers and diplomats is futile if the government remains corrupt and impotent. Well...

Exactly, get us the fuck out of there STAT

 

[BigSicily]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

Political, how could he after his CBO director stated in House testimony last week (June 23rd):

CBO Elmendorf: "Higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity ."

CBO Elmendorf: "Raising tax rates on rich hurts more than raising tax on everyone else."

As just reported in the WSJ, this recovery is already anemic:

On economic growth, real GDP has risen 0.8% over the 13 quarters since the recession began, compared to an average increase of 9.9% in past recoveries. From the beginning of the recession to April 2011, real personal income has grown just .9% compared to 9.4% for the same period in previous post 1960 recessions.

Bummer of a Recovery

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Political, how could he after his CBO director stated in House testimony last week (June 23rd):

​

As just reported in the WSJ, this recovery is already anemic:

​

DEBT CRISIS DEBT CRISIS DEBT CRISIS DEBT CRISIS DEBT CRISIS

Cutting spending isn't great for growth either, but as long as we're going to rabidly insist on debt and deficit reduction, revenues need to go up.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

OH EM GEE at Bachmann's son's mullet. Talk about white trash.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Wanna back that up? Because I don't believe it at all. Those may be the views of a sizeable vocal minority, but I don't think they represent the majority position of people in this country. Fox and the cable news media certainly like to give those views a lot of airtime, though. As it has been pointed out many times in this thread, most Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/americans-divided-taxing-rich-redistribute-wealth.aspx

Gallup seems to disagree. It's also a later poll than the one you quoted.

Polling is all in how you phrase the question. Hence, why it's mostly useless. Just keep your ears to the ground, and trust that a sizable amount of the population trusts Fox News, and you'll be fine.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Political, how could he after his CBO director stated in House testimony last week (June 23rd):

Well then maybe he should stop appointing economists that were on Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors and are Robert Rubin acolytes.

 

[reggieandTFE]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/americans-divided-taxing-rich-redistribute-wealth.aspx

What is your link to supposed to prove? The result on the first question is split, but later in the article it says that 2/3 of Americans want to raise Social Security taxes on the rich.

 

[Sirpopopop]

What is your link to supposed to prove? The result on the first question is split, but later in the article it says that 2/3 of Americans want to raise Social Security taxes on the rich.

Someone wanted a poll result that suggested that my view on Americans sympathizing with the rich has any basis in reality.

I found a poll result.

You can choose to dice it up anyway you want, but the results are contradictory. A social security tax on the rich is redistributive, yet the same article suggests that Americans are slightly against redistribute taxes?

I choose to believe that Americans will stick with the latter against the former. What, in the past 20-30 years has given you any faith that Americans truly believe the former?

 

[empty vessel]

What is your link to supposed to prove? The result on the first question is split, but later in the article it says that 2/3 of Americans want to raise Social Security taxes on the rich.

Right-winger promotes right-wing economic myths! News at 11.

Although BigSicily is wrong that Elmedorf is "Obama's" (the president does not appoint the CBO director), he was not entirely unsurprisingly appointed by Pelosi and Byrd.

Incidentally, the actual quote was: "Higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity to some extent by views of most economists." And I can't find a credible source on the second quote at all.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Seems like if you rephrase the poll: "Should the Bush tax cuts be repealed on the rich?", and "Should rich people pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit?" you'd get a different response.

 

[Kosmo]

Seems like if you rephrase the poll: "Should the Bush tax cuts be repealed on the rich?", and "Should rich people pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit?" you'd get a different response.

Words matter.

 

[Plinko]

There is a colossal difference in "redistribution of wealth" and "raise taxes on the rich" in the minds of the average American.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Redistribution=COMMIE! PINKO! MARXIST!

Isn't Reaganomics considered redistribution of wealth anyway?

 

[mckmas8808]

Wow, Obama caving on something yet again? No one could have predicted:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks-?page=1#comments

lol @ all the people who thought he would let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

This is the same bull crap that the tea party does. It makes lies out of stories and tries to act as if they are true.

We shouldn't resort to this stupidity. We all know the Bush tax cuts were never part of the deficit talks, so why act like they were all of a sudden? What makes you so much different than a tea party patriot that says Obama has raised taxes on most Americans?

 

[GhaleonEB]

PPP polls the GOP primaries:

More Bachmann Surge

We've never found her leading one of our state polls until now but Michele Bachmann's been on fire for the last two weeks and we find her at the top of the GOP field in both Oregon and Montana when Sarah Palin's not included. That's just more indication that if Palin ends up not running Bachmann will pretty instantaneously vault to co-front runner status with Mitt Romney, provided she can continue her current momentum.

In Oregon Bachmann gets 29% to 28% for Romney, 10% for Ron Paul, 9% for Newt Gingrich, 7% for Herman Cain, 6% for Tim Pawlenty, and 2% for Jon Huntsman. In Montana she leads with 25% to 22% for Romney, 11% for Gingrich, 10% for Paul, 9% for Pawlenty,8% for Cain, and 4% for Huntsman.​

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-bachmann-surge.html

She was tied in Iowa, as well.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

PPP polls the GOP primaries:

More Bachmann Surge

We've never found her leading one of our state polls until now but Michele Bachmann's been on fire for the last two weeks and we find her at the top of the GOP field in both Oregon and Montana when Sarah Palin's not included. That's just more indication that if Palin ends up not running Bachmann will pretty instantaneously vault to co-front runner status with Mitt Romney, provided she can continue her current momentum.

In Oregon Bachmann gets 29% to 28% for Romney, 10% for Ron Paul, 9% for Newt Gingrich, 7% for Herman Cain, 6% for Tim Pawlenty, and 2% for Jon Huntsman. In Montana she leads with 25% to 22% for Romney, 11% for Gingrich, 10% for Paul, 9% for Pawlenty,8% for Cain, and 4% for Huntsman.​

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-bachmann-surge.html

She was tied in Iowa, as well.

As much as I love how absolutely silly this, I really don't understand the mentality of her supporters at all.

 

[mckmas8808]

PPP polls the GOP primaries:

More Bachmann Surge

We've never found her leading one of our state polls until now but Michele Bachmann's been on fire for the last two weeks and we find her at the top of the GOP field in both Oregon and Montana when Sarah Palin's not included. That's just more indication that if Palin ends up not running Bachmann will pretty instantaneously vault to co-front runner status with Mitt Romney, provided she can continue her current momentum.

In Oregon Bachmann gets 29% to 28% for Romney, 10% for Ron Paul, 9% for Newt Gingrich, 7% for Herman Cain, 6% for Tim Pawlenty, and 2% for Jon Huntsman. In Montana she leads with 25% to 22% for Romney, 11% for Gingrich, 10% for Paul, 9% for Pawlenty,8% for Cain, and 4% for Huntsman.​

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-bachmann-surge.html

She was tied in Iowa, as well.

Huntsman is doing SOOO bad in these polls. How can he even win one state at this rate?

 

[Manmademan]

Huntsman is doing SOOO bad in these polls. How can he even win one state at this rate?

Huntsman has no chance here. Positioning yourself as a moderate when moderates stay home for primaries is a losing proposition.

The people coming out here are the evangelicals and tea partiers. Bachmann knows this, is playing to that audience and has ALWAYS played to that audience.

I'd bet good money Huntsman drops out before Gingrich does.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Huntsman is doing SOOO bad in these polls. How can he even win one state at this rate?

1) It's really early.
2) His campaign launched all of a week ago.

I, for one, am stunned that 11% of people anywhere think Newt Gingrich is qualified to be president.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

I really don't understand the mentality of her supporters at all.

Don't worry, they don't either.

 

[PhoenixDark]

To be fair, at this point last time Gulianni and Romney had high numbers and McCain was a blip on the radar. Pawlenty has a chance to rebound, especially as he sells out more and more; he's positioning himself as a more extreme Bush with his tax plans and his recent foreign policy foray.

Cain's support isn't real imo, and will collapse as time goes on. Those voters might end up in Bachman's numbers, but who knows. This type of unexpected run happens every election season, then *bam* the dark horse sinks.

 

[Manmademan]

1) It's really early.
2) His campaign launched all of a week ago.

I, for one, am stunned that 11% of people anywhere think Newt Gingrich is qualified to be president.

I don't find it shocking at all. He should be able to coast at least that high on name recognition alone from GOP voters who might remember him from the 90s, but don't regularly pay attention to politics.

 

[thekad]

Political, how could he after his CBO director stated in House testimony last week (June 23rd):

Link?

PS: He isn't Obama's CBO director. The president doesn't appoint the Congressional Budget Office director.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't find it shocking at all. He should be able to coast at least that high on name recognition alone from GOP voters who might remember him from the 90s, but don't regularly pay attention to politics.

Anti-democratic as it is, things like this make me want to impose some sort of weighting scheme that allows the votes of well-informed voters to count more.

 

[polyh3dron]

Michele Bachmann: Right town, wrong John Wayne

Mixing up an American screen legend with a serial killer -- just another day on the campaign trail, right?

Michele Bachmann delivered her presidential announcement in Waterloo, Iowa, Monday because she was born there, but she inadvertently ended up reminding residents of a dark chapter in their town’s history.

In an interview with Fox News Channel, Bachmann, the Minnesota conservative, pointed out that John Wayne, the actor, was from Waterloo. “That’s the kind of spirit I have, too,” Bachmann said.

Small problem: John Wayne didn’t hail from Waterloo. The former Marion Morrison was born in Winterset, Iowa, more than 100 miles to the south.

The most famous John Wayne from Waterloo is instead John Wayne Gacy, the infamous “killer clown” of Chicago, who was convicted of killing more than 30 young men in the 1970s and stashing their bodies in a crawlspace in his house.

Gacy and his family lived in Waterloo in the late '60s, and it was there that Gacy, then a local businessman, was convicted of sexual assault and sent to state prison. He was paroled two years later and moved to Chicago, where he soon began his killing spree.

Bachmann’s campaign later pointed out that the parents of John Wayne (the actor, not the serial killer, just to be crystal clear) lived in Waterloo for a time.

That hasn’t stopped the gaffe from turning into a media distraction on a day that had been carefully orchestrated to energize Bachmann's nascent presidential bid.

It also fuels what has become a running debate about Bachmann’s grasp of the facts. She was widely lampooned for suggesting earlier this year that the first shots of the Revolutionary War had been fired in New Hampshire rather than Massachusetts.

Bachmann was confronted by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday about her veracity of her attacks on President Obama.

Schieffer noted how PolitiFact, a fact-checking website that was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, analyzed 23 of Bachmann’s statements, finding just one to be “completely true.” Seven, Schieffer noted, were considered outright falsehoods.

“Do you feel you have misled people?” Schieffer asked Bachmann.

“No, I haven't misled people at all,” she replied.

Here’s the video of the Fox News interview: LINK

tl;dr: Bachmann said she has the same kind of spirit of this infamous serial killer:

Bachmann NEEDS to win the primary. So many more lulz to be had.

 

[Sirpopopop]

To be fair, at this point last time Gulianni and Romney had high numbers and McCain was a blip on the radar. Pawlenty has a chance to rebound, especially as he sells out more and more; he's positioning himself as a more extreme Bush with his tax plans and his recent foreign policy foray.

Cain's support isn't real imo, and will collapse as time goes on. Those voters might end up in Bachman's numbers, but who knows. This type of unexpected run happens every election season, then *bam* the dark horse sinks.

If Perry enters the race (at this stage, we can reasonably be sure Palin won't enter), then her ship will sink.

Otherwise... I think she's the Tea Party contender to Romney's establishment.

Edit: It appears that calling out Bachmann on her gaffes, seems to be having the opposite effect of making her seem more legitimate.

See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...bachmann-poses-challenges-for-male-rivals/?hp

The backlash against Chris Wallace.

 

[RustyNails]

In 2012, he'll let them expire because by then, the election will be over.

I know what he's gonna do. He will change the tax level from 35% to 37%. Remember Bush lowered it from 39.9% to 35%. Compromise, bitches!

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I know what he's gonna do. He will change the tax level from 35% to 37%. Remember Bush lowered it from 39.9% to 35%. Compromise, bitches!

THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY

The rates are staying where they are.

 

[RustyNails]

Jon Stewart destroys Chris Wallace yet again:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Glad he's being more aggressive recently.


Edit: Also too, Grover Norquist is (shocku) a tremendous scumbag. He quite literally implied that it's okay for grandma to die than to raise taxes on the top 2%. Holy shit.

Proper link to Wallace's segment here
http://www.hulu.com/watch/253994/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-oh-for-fox-sake

 

[Ether_Snake]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/debt-limit-stakes/

So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions: Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about:

a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

And Republicans walked out.

Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.

What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency.

But Obama has proven that he's a give all take nothing president, so we know the outcome already.

 

[mckmas8808]

To be fair, at this point last time Gulianni and Romney had high numbers and McCain was a blip on the radar. Pawlenty has a chance to rebound, especially as he sells out more and more; he's positioning himself as a more extreme Bush with his tax plans and his recent foreign policy foray.

Cain's support isn't real imo, and will collapse as time goes on. Those voters might end up in Bachman's numbers, but who knows. This type of unexpected run happens every election season, then *bam* the dark horse sinks.

Yeah but McCain was a household name in 2007. T-Paw not so much.

 

[mckmas8808]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/debt-limit-stakes/



But Obama has proven that he's a give all take nothing president, so we know the outcome already.

Isn't Paul being a bit (just a bit) hyperbolic here?

 

[Clevinger]

Isn't Paul being a bit (just a bit) hyperbolic here?

No.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I know what he's gonna do. He will change the tax level from 35% to 37%. Remember Bush lowered it from 39.9% to 35%. Compromise, bitches!

He'll extend them again because republicans won't let him separate the middle class tax cuts from the rich's.

Frum has a good take on David Brooks' latest article. I'm no Brooks fan, but he makes some good points, and Frum further expands:

Yet Brooks has laid out the most useful and effective critique of Barack Obama for Republicans in 2012: The job has overwhelmed the man. He’s not an alien, he’s not a radical. He’s just not the person the country needs. He’s not tough enough, he’s not imaginative enough, and he’s not determined enough.

In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the president ran out of ideas sometime back in 2009.

In the face of opposition, Obama goes passive. The mean Republicans refused votes on his Federal Reserve nominees and Obama … did nothing. Would Ronald Reagan have done nothing? FDR? Lyndon Johnson?

With unemployment at 10% and interest rates at 1%, the president got persuaded that it was debt and interest that trumped growth and jobs as Public Issue #1.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/28/david-frum-republicans-misread-obamas-weaknesses/

He's not an ineffective leader, he's simply not a leader.

 

[gcubed]

Link?

PS: He isn't Obama's CBO director. The president doesn't appoint the Congressional Budget Office director.

i've been trying to find it as well. I can give you links from obamaisnotmypresident.com and heritagefoundation and random right wing blog twitters, looking for context.

I broke my rule of not participating in this thread while BigSicily does.

 

[Chichikov]

THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY

The rates are staying where they are.

Don't you love it how our political game is all about changes in tax rates and not the actual rates?
Can you imagine applying the same frame of reference to anything else?
"Man, it's hot today, it's 3 degrees higher than yesterday! minus 7 baby! HEATWAVE!!!!"

 

[Cyan]

Isn't Paul being a bit (just a bit) hyperbolic here?

Krugman sucks, but he's got a point here. This has become completely absurd--the Dems hold the Senate and the White House, and yet they can't seem to do anything at all.

The Republicans are playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and it's completely insane. Raising the debt ceiling is not some leftist liberal thing. It's not a partisan issue. It's not something where Democrats should have to be making giant concessions to Republicans just to get them to go along with it. "Oh hey, this car is speeding toward a cliff. Shouldn't we turn the wheel?" "Well ok, but I'll want some concessions first..."

To let them win here will just embolden them.

 

[Resident_UA]

Krugman sucks, but he's got a point here. This has become completely absurd--the Dems hold the Senate and the White House, and yet they can't seem to do anything at all.

The Republicans are playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and it's completely insane. Raising the debt ceiling is not some leftist liberal thing. It's not a partisan issue. It's not something where Democrats should have to be making giant concessions to Republicans just to get them to go along with it. "Oh hey, this car is speeding toward a cliff. Shouldn't we turn the wheel?" "Well ok, but I'll want some concessions first..."

To let them win here will just embolden them.

To be fair raising the ceiling is largely symbolical. But these days even symbolical things tend to influence the economy....

 

[polyh3dron]

Oh fuck off Brooks and Frum.

Obama's problem was that he would come to the negotiation table with the Republicans under the assumption that they were there in good faith and wanted to help the fucking country. Republicans win the house and Obama decides to roll with this whole "it's the national debt that's killing our jobs thing" and a fucking Republican wants to say that Obama was wrong to listen to the Republicans' ideas?

Bottom line is that the Republicans have used their elected positions to sabotage this country with the sole objective of making Obama and the Democrats look bad knowing that their base is so brainwashed that they'll reward them for doing so. What can you possibly do to counteract that? They filibuster EVERYTHING.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Krugman sucks, but he's got a point here. This has become completely absurd--the Dems hold the Senate and the White House, and yet they can't seem to do anything at all.

The Republicans are playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and it's completely insane. Raising the debt ceiling is not some leftist liberal thing. It's not a partisan issue. It's not something where Democrats should have to be making giant concessions to Republicans just to get them to go along with it. "Oh hey, this car is speeding toward a cliff. Shouldn't we turn the wheel?" "Well ok, but I'll want some concessions first..."

To let them win here will just embolden them.

He's already emboldened them by setting a precedent here. What will republicans demand next time? This has been the story of Obama's presidency.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

To be fair raising the ceiling is largely symbolical. But these days even symbolical things tend to influence the economy....

It's not symbolic at all. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the United States defaults on its debt. I think that we have a debt ceiling at all is kind of preposterous to begin with, but it's not appropriate to write it off as symbolic--choose not to pay your bills for a few months and see what happens to your credit rating.

Oh fuck off Brooks.

Obama's problem was that he would come to the negotiation table with the Republicans under the assumption that they were there in good faith and wanted to help the fucking country. Republicans win the house and Obama decides to roll with this whole "it's the national debt that's killing our jobs thing" and a fucking Republican wants to say that Obama was wrong to listen to the Republicans' ideas?

One thousand times this. It seems as though the President is determined not to realize this fact despite a biography that speaks highly towards his intelligence. I don't understand it.

 

[polyh3dron]

Frum and Brooks are basically saying "Yeah, Obama's a bad president because he fell for our manufactured narrative about the debt being the reason our economy sucks and that we need to keep the tax cuts to the rich while punishing old people and the poor in order to fix it."

also, fucking LOL @ "the debt ceiling is symbolical". Yeah, hopefully the GOP comes to its senses and stops holding this country hostage so that we don't find out first hand just how untrue that statement is.

 

[speculawyer]

As much as I love how absolutely silly this, I really don't understand the mentality of her supporters at all.

Go read the message board rapture-ready.com Those are her people.

But unless you can really understand hardcore religious fanatics, you won't ever really understand them. I certainly can't.

She was tied in Iowa, as well.

As I've said before, I think she wins Iowa. She'll have to say something crazy to lose it. And I mean really crazy because ordinary crazy is fine with the Iowa GOP primary voter. She's been working really hard on keeping the crazy locked down.

Go Bachmann!

 

[Measley]

Obama just can't win. The left is never satisfied, while the right wanted him gone as soon as he won the election.

I almost want Obama to lose so I don't have to hear both sides whining like children. At least one side will be happy and not complain, even if their guy or gal doesn't deliver everything they want.

 

[eznark]

Frum and Brooks are basically saying "Yeah, Obama's a bad president because he fell for our manufactured narrative about the debt being the reason our economy sucks and that we need to keep the tax cuts to the rich while punishing old people and the poor in order to fix it."

Let's assume that is what they are saying...why is it an invalid criticism? Obama has been wholly unable to bring the narrative to his side in an effective enough way to get, well, anything. I'd say that is absolutely a failure of leadership.

 

[gcubed]

Frum and Brooks are basically saying "Yeah, Obama's a bad president because he fell for our manufactured narrative about the debt being the reason our economy sucks and that we need to keep the tax cuts to the rich while punishing old people and the poor in order to fix it."

also, fucking LOL @ "the debt ceiling is symbolical". Yeah, hopefully the GOP comes to its senses and stops holding this country hostage so that we don't find out first hand just how untrue that statement is.

im ready to find out. I'm tired of the bullshit. Half of the people elected last year are functionally retarded and dont deserve to be anywhere near a political office higher then a local ward leader.