Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

It's a good book.

Not if this Amazon review is any indication: "Zakaria's prescriptions are somewhat conservative: less regulation, less taxation, less litigation, less concern about environment, etc."

If that's an inaccurate characterization of Zakaria's views, I'd consider reading. If it is accurate, I don't think he has anything of any value to say about growing the US economy.

 

[planar1280]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1943976257173&set=p.1943976257173&type=1&ref=nf

...

This is getting old now

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Not if this Amazon review is any indication: "Zakaria's prescriptions are somewhat conservative: less regulation, less taxation, less litigation, less concern about environment, etc."

If that's an inaccurate characterization of Zakaria's views, I'd consider reading. If it is accurate, I don't think he has anything of any value to say about growing the US economy.

I read it about 5 or 6 years ago and I honestly don't remember many of the particulars. It just seemed to talk rationally about the idea that America was not going to be an untouchable superpower forever and we needed to deal with it by some other means that burying our heads in the sand and shouting, "U-S-A." I'd have to re-read it.

edit: looking through the Amazon reviews, I find that the book's weakness is more likely that it too much resembles a book by Thomas Friedman. It was definitely better than that, though, but one would think the president might be looking for slightly more technical or focused literature.

 

[Blergmeister]

I read it about 5 or 6 years ago and I honestly don't remember many of the particulars. It just seemed to talk rationally about the idea that America was not going to be an untouchable superpower forever and we needed to deal with it by some other means that burying our heads in the sand and shouting, "U-S-A." I'd have to re-read it.

USA USA USA

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is getting old now

The worse thing about this stuff is that elected officials legitimize it. There will always be crazy people saying crazy things, but when people in power give them cover it can become a problem. Kosmo will probably google this for me, but I don't remember democrats bluntly arguing Bush hated America or the troops, was purposely putting the country in danger in order to weaken America, etc.

Candidates for president are insinuating Obama is selling out the country's security to Russia/Putin, supports Iran more than Israel, is cutting the defense budget to a point where soldiers will be put in major risk, etc. At what point does this toxic language cease?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

The worse thing about this stuff is that elected officials legitimize it. There will always be crazy people saying crazy things, but when people in power give them cover it can become a problem. Kosmo will probably google this for me, but I don't remember democrats bluntly arguing Bush hated America or the troops, was purposely putting the country in danger in order to weaken America, etc.

Candidates for president are insinuating Obama is selling out the country's security to Russia/Putin, supports Iran more than Israel, is cutting the defense budget to a point where soldiers will be put in major risk, etc. At what point does this toxic language cease?

Assassination.

 

[Allard]

The worse thing about this stuff is that elected officials legitimize it. There will always be crazy people saying crazy things, but when people in power give them cover it can become a problem. Kosmo will probably google this for me, but I don't remember democrats bluntly arguing Bush hated America or the troops, was purposely putting the country in danger in order to weaken America, etc.

Candidates for president are insinuating Obama is selling out the country's security to Russia/Putin, supports Iran more than Israel, is cutting the defense budget to a point where soldiers will be put in major risk, etc. At what point does this toxic language cease?

There were politicians like that but they were usually swiftly punished for it or publicly condemned. In fact I would go to say that when a legitimate problem like that occurs the various dem caucuses are usually the first to separate themselves from the individual well before the attacks come his/her way, even when it turns out the 'controversy' was a bunch of BS.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Assassination.

At which point conservatives would point out that Obama brought it on himself by being a hate-mongering socialist Marxist Kenyan.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Assassination.

I was about to put "does someone have to be shot for this to end?" but decided not to. It's really seeming like we're headed that way. Obama is probably the most well defended dude in the world but congressmen and senators aren't so lucky, as the Giffords situation proved. And even with Obama there's the possibility that something could happen, now that we're back to campaign season with huge crowds and him hugging folks. Bah : /

I can already hear the false equivalencies and petty smears that would inevitably spawn.

The Russian stuff, the Martin freak out, Iran...say what you will about McCain, but I'll always respect him for not turning his September-October 08 march to defeat into the hateful environment others (like Palin) were fostering at the time.

 

[planar1280]

The worse thing about this stuff is that elected officials legitimize it. There will always be crazy people saying crazy things, but when people in power give them cover it can become a problem. Kosmo will probably google this for me, but I don't remember democrats bluntly arguing Bush hated America or the troops, was purposely putting the country in danger in order to weaken America, etc.

Candidates for president are insinuating Obama is selling out the country's security to Russia/Putin, supports Iran more than Israel, is cutting the defense budget to a point where soldiers will be put in major risk, etc. At what point does this toxic language cease?

So they think obama will bring doom but they want to elect a republican who can bring them rapture

 

[Opiate]

A recent study finds that trust in science amongst the general population remains unchanged, except for the conservative population, whose trust in science has been halved over the last 30 years. Moderates, who had once been the least trusting in science by a very wide margin, have now surpassed conservatives as a consequence.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/chart-day-conservatives-dont-trust-science

 

[planar1280]

A recent study finds that trust in science amongst the general population remains unchanged, except for the conservative population, whose trust in science has been halved over the last 30 years. Moderates, who had once been the least trusting in science by a very wide margin, have now surpassed conservatives as a consequence.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/chart-day-conservatives-dont-trust-science

The Moderates are worse if you think about it

 

[Chichikov]

Not if this Amazon review is any indication: "Zakaria's prescriptions are somewhat conservative: less regulation, less taxation, less litigation, less concern about environment, etc."

If that's an inaccurate characterization of Zakaria's views, I'd consider reading. If it is accurate, I don't think he has anything of any value to say about growing the US economy.

Zakaria is a conservative.
He isn't a crazy ideologue, but he is a conservative, by any normal definition of the word.

It's still a very good book.

Also, I think it's intellectually dangerous to only read books you agree with.

 

[Averon]

Assassination.

Nope. People make too much money from being fire breathers to stop even if Obama or some other President is assassinated. Look at the Giffords shooting as an example.

 

[Aaron Strife]

As much as I want minimum wage to go up, I don't think its a good idea to have it jump that high so quickly in the middle of a recovery. The only way I'd like to see such a law passed is if it was phased for 2-3 years before hitting that wage point, and maybe using direct government subsidies to payroll wages to fill the gap so it doesn't immediately make corporation and smaller businesses (And I'm talking real smaller businesses like small retail stores, grocery stores etc.) that might have depended on keeping certain workers wages low to this point from overwhelming the system. Basically give them a chance to adjust so the initial fallout is less. The good thing about doing it on the federal level is that the playing field is even, but that doesn't change the fact that some companies bottom line will be negatively effected by it and it might force companies to fire some workers because they are suddenly too expensive. For instance the company I work for keeps some employees near minimum wage but they supplement their earnings with full healthcare benefits and often times a place to live so they don't have rental fees to worry about. The amount of overall wages when put those benefits together is far above minimum wage but gross income is a different story.

It does phase it in. It would incrementally increase annually for three years until it hits 9.80, at which point it would be tied to inflation increases.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Nope. People make too much money from being fire breathers to stop even if Obama or some other President is assassinated. Look at the Giffords shooting as an example.

Even that bipartisan call for civility was attacked with the typical right wing playbook. Obama's memorial speech was "insulting" and "politicized." False equivalencies. Childish "how come Obama doesn't call out democrats!?!" rants, despite Obama clearly discussing the toxic aspect of politics in general - both sides.

 

[RoninChaos]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1943976257173&set=p.1943976257173&type=1&ref=nf

...

I ripped into someone on my facebook the other day for sharing that bullshit.

 

[Chichikov]

At what point does this toxic language cease?

When voters start punishing those who use it.
People always say they want bipartisanship, but they don't vote that way.
When they do, politicians will fall over themselves to be the most bipartisan.

 

[Allard]

It does phase it in. It would incrementally increase annually for three years until it hits 9.80, at which point it would be tied to inflation increases.

IC, guess that's what I get for not reading the article (At work). Still I am always a bit hesitant on Minimum wage laws. I think they are needed, but at the same time they need to be implemented very carefully and that 9.80 jump is a huge jump even over 3 years. I live in the state with the highest minimum wage in the country and even that is only $9.04. At 9.80 that effectively makes the federal minimum wage higher then any state in the country. Current fed minimum wage is $7.25 so that would mean about 35% increase in hourly wages within 3 years.

I do think its needed, but it is without a doubt a very drastic change and should be looked at carefully.

 

[empty vessel]

Also, I think it's intellectually dangerous to only read books you agree with.

Not if the conclusions drawn are so wrong that it is effectively a waste of time. I mean, I'm not going to spend time reading books that argue the earth is flat just to get a different take on it. We all have to use some discretion in separating the wheat from the chaff before engaging.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Even that bipartisan call for civility was attacked with the typical right wing playbook. Obama's memorial speech was "insulting" and "politicized." False equivalencies. Childish "how come Obama doesn't call out democrats!?!" rants, despite Obama clearly discussing the toxic aspect of politics in general - both sides.

The major thing I've noticed is how resistant a certain percentage of Americans are to give Obama credit for anything. His speech post-Giffords was generally well-received and gave him an approval rating bump, but it only put him in the low 50s. Even after OBL's death was announced, I don't think he ever reached 60% approval. Contrast to George W. "Highest and Lowest Approval Ratings in History" Bush with his 90% approval rating after 9/11, an event in which he did nothing but happen to be the man in charge.

It seems like it's much easier for Republicans to achieve universal popularity than Democrats. Granted, Obama entered office with what, 70% approval? That tapered off pretty quickly though and I doubt he's going to reach that any time soon. Maybe if he has a successful second term he'll rebound like Clinton (left office with 66% approval, IIRC). Hopefully his successor would have better coattails than Gore.

IC, guess that's what I get for not reading the article (At work). Still I am always a bit hesitant on Minimum wage laws. I think they are needed, but at the same time they need to be implemented very carefully and that 9.80 jump is a huge jump even over 3 years. I live in the state with the highest minimum wage in the country and even that is only $9.04. At 9.80 that effectively makes the federal minimum wage higher then any state in the country. Current fed minimum wage is $7.25 so that would mean about 35% increase in hourly wages within 3 years.

I do think its needed, but it is without a doubt a very drastic change and should be looked at carefully.

Personally I think it would go a long way to reducing poverty in USA. Minimum wage is balls hard to sustain your livelihood on, and for some people, McDonald's is the only place hiring in this economy. I think if we want to make a legitimate effort at reducing poverty/welfare recipients, hiring people in entry-level positions at 7.25 an hour isn't going to cut it.

Better-paying jobs plus a universal healthcare system would dramatically improve the general welfare.

 

[Plumbob]

Not if the conclusions drawn are so wrong that it is effectively a waste of time. I mean, I'm not going to spend time reading books that argue the earth is flat just to get a different take on it. We all have to use some discretion in separating the wheat from the chaff before engaging.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you.

You have no way of evaluating if his conclusions are invalid without looking at his arguments. And if they are well-constructed and well-researched, even if they're ultimately incorrect, then it will still benefit your understanding of the issues to read them. It's always healthy to take a step outside of the echo chamber.

 

[Jackson50]

Not if this Amazon review is any indication: "Zakaria's prescriptions are somewhat conservative: less regulation, less taxation, less litigation, less concern about environment, etc."

If that's an inaccurate characterization of Zakaria's views, I'd consider reading. If it is accurate, I don't think he has anything of any value to say about growing the US economy.

Identifiable strands of neoliberalism pervade the book. Whether that's disagreeable is your prerogative. But the book is not worthwhile for its economic insight. Rather, he respectably distills IR concepts which are probably arcane to casual observers. Although, the book is not irreproachable. He's influenced greatly by Lipset and pays credence to the more dubious aspects of modernization theory. Particularly, his exposition of China is plagued with an inordinate focus on the role of Confucian philosophy. He propagates the same tired proposition as Lipset, Huntington, et al. Nonetheless, a pretty good, yet flawed tome.

Zakaria is a conservative.
He isn't a crazy ideologue, but he is a conservative, by any normal definition of the word.

It's still a very good book.

Also, I think it's intellectually dangerous to only read books you agree with.

Conservative is not particularly apt. Not that his disposition towards neoliberalism is entirely dissimilar from conservatives. But he envisages a more expansive role for IOs and a positive orientation towards multilateralism than a conservative. I'd sat he approximates to a New Democrat like Clinton or Obama whose reputedly fond of his work.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1943976257173&set=p.1943976257173&type=1&ref=nf

...

The funny thing is that judging from what the book is about, it's probably the thing he should be reading given his occupation.

America isn't always going to be the world hyperpower. Hell it will almost definitely be out of that position by the end of my lifetime. Its best to figure out the best way we can land gracefully into the new world of truly global capitalism and world powers.

 

[Black Mamba]

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 Obamacare law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.

“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Ala. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican’s budget chief in the Senate.

“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.

The hidden shortfall between new Obamacare spending and new Obamacare taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court judges grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the constitution’s limits on government activity. If the judges don’t strike down the law, Obamacare will force taxpayers find another $17 trillion to pay for Obamacare’s spending.

The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years.

The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term.

That $82 billion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.

The $82 trillion funding gap is equal to 28 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.

The new $17 trillion funding gap is five times the current federal budget.

Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 65 years. Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.

The extra $17 billion gap was discovered by applying standard CMMS estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

For example, Session’s examination of Obamacare’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.

The same review also showed the Obamacare law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.

“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.

“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”

Senate Repubs Claim To Find $17 Trillion Surprise in Obamacare

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Senate Repubs Claim To Find $17 Trillion Surprise in Obamacare

Have Republicans stated how much it will cost if we don't do anything?

 

[Black Mamba]

Have Republicans stated how much it will cost if we don't do anything?

No, because Republicans wouldn't do nothing. They would make the costs go up even higher.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, because Republicans wouldn't do nothing. They would make the costs go up even higher.

Yep.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Olberman has been fired from Current TV (ouch) and is currently tweeting his response, 140 characters at a time.

https://twitter.com/#!/KeithOlbermann

Sounds like he's going to sue for the balance of his $50m contract.

Senate Repubs Claim To Find $17 Trillion Surprise in Obamacare

The extra $17 billion gap was discovered by applying standard CMMS estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

This implies they extrapolated the spending side of the bill forward, but not the revenues and cost reductions, and are framing that as a gap.

 

[Stinkles]

Senate Repubs Claim To Find $17 Trillion Surprise in Obamacare

Your story says 17 billion and 17 trillion in the same copy.

 

[Black Mamba]

Your story says 17 billion and 17 trillion in the same copy.

Didn't even notice that.

BTW, if i post an article without comment, I'm just posting news. Just stating in case someone thinks I support the article or whatever.

 

[elrechazado]

You have no way of evaluating if his conclusions are invalid without looking at his arguments. And if they are well-constructed and well-researched, even if they're ultimately incorrect, then it will still benefit your understanding of the issues to read them. It's always healthy to take a step outside of the echo chamber.

You can examine the writer and his premise and determine whether it's a useful use of time. I agree with empty_vessel. Mostly that I would never read anything related to economics written by empty_vessel, but the principle and his logic are sound with respect to reading interests.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sounds like bullshit to me. The GOP has been raving about how much this bill is going to "cost" anyway, ignoring that our current system is that much worse.

Wisconsin came up earlier so I'll post this from Marist:

Wisconsin governor (recall)

Scott Walker 46
Generic D 48

Wisconsin Senate

Tammy Baldwin 45
Generic R 40

Dunno why they didn't poll Walker and Baldwin against Barrett and Thompson, respectively, it would have been far more insightful. Still, not too shabby.

Edit: Barrett's announced - he's in! Great news since he's probably the best chance behind Feingold.

 

[PantherLotus]

Didn't even notice that.

BTW, if i post an article without comment, I'm just posting news. Just stating in case someone thinks I support the article or whatever.

If it's news, this qualifier isn't necessary.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Olberman has been fired from Current TV (ouch) and is currently tweeting his response, 140 characters at a time.

https://twitter.com/#!/KeithOlbermann

Sounds like he's going to sue for the balance of his $50m contract.



This implies they extrapolated the spending side of the bill forward, but not the revenues and cost reductions, and are framing that as a gap.

At what point does Keith ever taken credit for his being let go at every single destination he's ever been at. I mean seriously.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

What's GAF's opinion on cost-shifting due to uncompensated care? Looked through some sources and they had very different conclusions, but I didn't grasp the technical details behind the calculations exactly. The problem is that not every report talks about how the uncompensated costs are ''shifted'' to insurance premiums, so I don't understand if I can compare each of the figures which seem to be between 0.8% and 7.7%. The American Hospital Association has 6%, but they also have this little tidbit:

The uncompensated care figure does not include Medicaid or Medicare underpayment costs, or other contractual allowances. Moreover, the figure does not take into account the small number of hospitals that derive the majority of their income from tax appropriations, grants and contributions.

Does this mean that the actual number affecting insurance premiums is lower than 6%? Could it be much lower? They don't give specifics.

This other one concludes:

Net uncompensated cost as a percent of private insurance costs: 7.7%

http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/hidden-health-tax.pdf

This more ''optimistic'' one:

We estimate that the amount of uncompensated care potentially available for private cost-shifting is most likely about $8 billion. Given that total private health insurance expenditures in 2008 are estimated to be $829.9 billion (from NHEA projections), the amount potentially associated with cost-shifting represents less than one percent of private health insurance costs.

But they also say that the government programs reserved $42.9 billion for uncompensated costs. Admittedly their goal is to find out the effects on insurance premiums, but god damn if that $42.9 billion isn't a huge number.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7809.pdf

 

[Oblivion]

Joe Walsh once again displays how much of a piece of shit he is:

Sitting inside a coffee shop during a recent 30-minute interview, Walsh had several of his trademark characteristics on display: a feverish intensity, an embrace of rhetorical combat and unfettered criticism of his opponent, who lost both of her legs and part of her right arm in 2004 after her helicopter was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade.

“I have so much respect for what she did in the fact that she sacrificed her body for this country,” said Walsh, simultaneously lowering his voice as he leaned forward before pausing for dramatic effect. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on.”

“What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh,” he continued. “She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel just picked her up and dropped her into this district.”

http://dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079213/-Rep-Joe-Walsh-on-Tammy-Duckworth-s-service-Ehhh-


He's an immense scumbag, but there's a bigger point here. For all the praise and adulation the right wingers like to bestow upon those in the military, it's ONLY to the extent that those same people support right wing policies. When the military person in question happens to be a democrat, they are no longer worthy of that respect. Joe Walsh clearly demonstrated this with Tammy Duckworth, and the likes of Karl Rove, Limbaugh their ilk did the same 8 years ago to war hero John Kerry. If the Dems ever (may not be likely) get most of the support of the military, you can count on the righties suddenly quitting with the 'support our troops' bullshit.

 

[Mortrialus]

Joe Walsh once again displays how much of a piece of shit he is:



http://dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079213/-Rep-Joe-Walsh-on-Tammy-Duckworth-s-service-Ehhh-


He's an immense scumbag, but there's a bigger point here. For all the praise and adulation the right wingers like to bestow upon those in the military, it's ONLY to the extent that those same people support right wing policies. When the military person in question happens to be a democrat, they are no longer worthy of that respect. Joe Walsh clearly demonstrated this with Tammy Duckworth, and the likes of Karl Rove, Limbaugh their ilk did the same 8 years ago to war hero John Kerry. If the Dems ever (may not be likely) get most of the support of the military, you can count on the righties suddenly quitting with the 'support our troops' bullshit.

Your criticism is spot on.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Joe Walsh once again displays how much of a piece of shit he is:



http://dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079213/-Rep-Joe-Walsh-on-Tammy-Duckworth-s-service-Ehhh-


He's an immense scumbag, but there's a bigger point here. For all the praise and adulation the right wingers like to bestow upon those in the military, it's ONLY to the extent that those same people support right wing policies. When the military person in question happens to be a democrat, they are no longer worthy of that respect. Joe Walsh clearly demonstrated this with Tammy Duckworth, and the likes of Karl Rove, Limbaugh their ilk did the same 8 years ago to war hero John Kerry. If the Dems ever (may not be likely) get most of the support of the military, you can count on the righties suddenly quitting with the 'support our troops' bullshit.

Any minority or special group is treated that way by the far right (and to be fair liberals do this as well to an extent, especially with black conservatives). They seem to put them on a pedestal, and any member of those groups who isn't a republican can be torn down with nasty language. Cain and Alan West and praised while black democrats are labeled as slaves on the Liberal Plantation/brain washed. Gay congressmen/senators are targets for ridicule and straight up bigotry, but Paul Babeu is perfectly fine. John McCain is a war hero worthy of respect (when he sticks to conservative ideals at least), John Murtha was a coward. etc


I don't expect dems to retake the House, but I feel like at least people like Walsh, West, Sean Duffy, and a few other aggressively ignorant folks will likely be ousted. And I'd be more than fine with that

 

[Jackson50]

Who can't wait for the general election?

By Lara Seligman
Updated: March 30, 2012 | 10:24 a.m.
March 30, 2012 | 7:34 a.m.

President Obama’s re-election campaign is calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns dating back to the 1980s, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Following a front-page Wall Street Journal article Thursday reporting that employees at Bain Capital, Romney’s former private-equity firm, were allowed to invest their retirement money in companies the firm acquired through a special share class, the Obama camp is seeking Romney’s old tax returns to see if they contain information about the investment arrangement.

Reports indicate that the deal could have increased the value of certain investments, which may have helped swell Romney’s retirement account. The candidate’s IRA was valued at between $20.7 million and $101.6 million as of August, according to his financial disclosures.

“Today’s report raises additional questions about Gov. Romney’s manipulation of the tax laws,” Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, told The Journal, adding that Romney “may have engaged in questionable maneuvers to drive up the value of his IRA.”

Romney released his 2010 and preliminary 2011 tax returns earlier this year.

The Romney campaign pushed back Friday with their own request in an e-mail to National Journal: that Obama release the transcripts of all his meetings with world leaders.

“The Obama campaign is playing politics, just as he’s doing in his conduct of foreign policy," Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul wrote. "Obama should release the notes and transcripts of all his meetings with world leaders so the American people can be satisfied that he’s not promising to sell out the country’s interests after the election is over.”

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-pre...mney-tax-returns-20120330?mrefid=election2012

 

[Suikoguy]

Holy fuck at asking for transcripts of meeting with FOREIGN powers, wtf.

 

[Officerrob]

Holy fuck at asking for transcripts of meeting with FOREIGN powers, wtf.

Why would anyone think THAT would be a good idea? That's some extremely naive stuff.

 

[Suikoguy]

Why would anyone think THAT would be a good idea? That's some extremely naive stuff.

Nevermind the reasoning being that the president is a traitor who can't be trusted.

 

[Jackson50]

Nevermind the reasoning being that the president is a traitor who can't be trusted.

You think we can afford to trust Obama?

 

[Hop]

You think we can afford to trust Obama?

Well with his net worth, I'm sure Romney can afford just about anything.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

“The Obama campaign is playing politics, just as he’s doing in his conduct of foreign policy," Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul wrote. "Obama should release the notes and transcripts of all his meetings with world leaders so the American people can be satisfied that he’s not promising to sell out the country’s interests after the election is over.”

Because instead of 'selling out the country's interests' as soon as he got elected, Obama's cunning plan was to bide his time and waste 4 years and half of his term, so that he could sell out the country AFTER a possible re-election. Because that makes some kind of sense in wacko-land. This narrative that Obama is a secret traitor that will 'eventually show his treachery, just you wait!' will continue until his last day in office. Even when Obama has a day left in his presidency, he wouldn't have proven yet that he isn't a traitor, because he still has a day to do whatever evil scheme he took the Presidency to do.

Andrea Saul, just shut the fuck up, you look like some kind of evil vampire. Also, stop pretending you speak for the American people, fucking lunatic.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Who can't wait for the general election?

I repeat: Mitt Romney is the worst presidential candidate in the modern era.

 

[Tamanon]

LOL at wanting the release of all transcripts of meetings with world leaders.

Diplomacy, how does it work?

 

[markatisu]

I repeat: Mitt Romney is the worst presidential candidate in the modern era.

Agreed, and it has to kill the GOP that he is the best thing they can run this time

 

[Chichikov]

I repeat: Mitt Romney is the worst presidential candidate in the modern era.

The dude wanted to nuke Nam, go to war with the Soviet Union and kill social security.

Oh and he said he wanted to saw off the eastern seaboard, which at the time had almost 50% of the population.

Andrea Saul, just shut the fuck up, you look like some kind of evil vampire.

She looks like that chick from V who ate mice.
Damn, that show gave me the most terrifying boners.