What's that saying about statistics?

I think the saying is, "If they help my argument they are absolute proof I am right, if not they are just damn statistics."

How GD stupid must people be. That POS Newt. All I have to say is Fannie Mae. How can anyone who Lob's and takes $'s and lots of them from them get a single Rep vote?????? Do people not remember the 90's and all that B.S. The guy is scum, will say anything to get the office and is even worse than BO.

That last line is sad but true. If he wins the nomination this will be the worst two jokes running for the POTUS in my lifetime. Newt would be the worse of the worst two as well.

Mr. 14% Romney is now 100% unellectable as the others always were. So now they want a thorn not a POTUS.

I dont care what someone does in their private life but to run clinton through what newt did while doing the same yourself......That takes stones. Not in a good way either.

Everything is for a vote. No backbone, no ethics, just lies to get votes. Reminds me of Edwards and his two Americas or BO and his endless class warfare. Just dont give a damn about the country and create divide to get votes. Newt is worse than just about anyone because he is not just about getting votes.....he wants to profit as well. He will say anything to get elected and do anything to get paid. At least BO does not go there.

Yeah because the status quo isn't class warfare. Just ask Mitt and his 14% tax rate.

I'll say this again for those who didn't catch it in the other thread I posted in.

Are you all listening?,....... Newt Gingrich will not be the Republican nominee before the convention. Talking about it is a complete waste of time. (Some of you seem to enjoy that kind of thing, so congratulations?)

Both him and Santorum failed to gain ballot access in states equaling 564 delegates. That means there is no mathmatical scenario in which either of them garner the needed 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination. The only possible scenario in which either of them could win is a brokered convention in which there is no clear nominee after the first round of voting at the convention and all obligated delegates are released to vote as they please.

Only Romney and Paul are on all 50 state primary and caucus ballots.

Wow did I hear it right? Romney paid 6 million in taxes last year.
And Obammy????
What's a santorum?

So he stiffed the Mormon Church out of the required 10% a year too.?

Romney donated money where he wanted it to , not where the government thinks it's needed.

Give the money to BO or Newt......They would find just the right donors, er, I mean needy to spend it on.

It isn't charity if it's for your own personal tax deduction.

If your tax rate is 35%, you should be thankful for having a much better than average income.

Who gives a F about Newt? He can't win and the people who vote for him will never be people you agree with anyway. Hell, in the last 9 months their have been 4 different people who lead in the R polls. It's the same with every election. Up and down, all around. It'll be a few months before things get serious. Until then it's all just a bunch of blather about nothing.

Our country needs a bit of a revolution and OWS wasn't it. We need the masses to walk on every capitol city in the US showing solidarity. That means R's and D's voicing their displeasure together regarding the direction of our government. It doesn't matter if we have philosophical differences. We need our politicians to represent us, not just their party.

There is absolutely no way that Hankster can "comprehend what the average American thinks" from his low vantage point.

There is no Newt style of government. He holds no public office. I never said Romney shouldn't pay a higher rate. I really just enjoy watching people react very quick with a finger pointing somewhere in the other direction.

You shouldn't be thankful for having a very good income? WTF?

Apparently not. Bitch about your lot in life if that makes you feel better.

The Tea Party folks have an influence on elections just as the ultra progressives do. To blame them for where we are seems a bit misguided. In the end, we all have a vote. Do you want to disregard someone else's vote because it's not in line with your way of thinking. Our government has become an entity that I think has lost it's way. It's not about helping the citizens anymore, it's only about helping the party.
That holds true for both sides. Obama hasn't changed anything, nor will the next administration. It's up to us to get this country back. Blaming Newt is just a convenient excuse.

Ranty, you're really quite funny. Reading this forum over the past 8 years, I think I know who the flip flopper is.... Hahahahahaha!

It’s really very simple, fair-minded people think those who work hard to produce a product should not have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those who clip the coupons off the bonds they inherit or from buying and dismantling companies.

The capital gains tax is the source of much of Romney's income. (Well he did say he made a small amount from speaking fees. Turns out that small amount were $375,000 last year. He is sooo out of touch with real people he thinks $375,000 is insignificant.)
The capital gains tax should be at least as high as the tax on earnings. Fact - more than 80% of all capital gains are "earned" by less than 1% of Americans. Let’s place a 30% rate on all capital gains after the first $1,000,000 per year. WTF is unfair about that? Does America have a crisis? Well how about the wealthy helping out proportionally as much as the middle class?

For the apologists who says we need that job creating investment I say bull crap. Can any rational person tell me an investor will not make an investment that earns them an extra dollar if the dollar is taxed at 30% vs. 15%? No one I know would say oh I don’t want an additional .70 because under the old system I could’ve gotten .85

At least you're consistent in that you're pretty quick to lash out. Can't quite see where I unsulted you. Go ahead and lob your vollies my way. It seems to be what you do best.

+1 DV.

No, we're not listening. Your completely false post (that you've made twice now) touts 564 delegates. You read this at some obviously crappy website which listed the states of Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Illinois as the ones he's missing, right?

Only he's qualified for Illinois:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...ntorum-campaign

oh, and he's qualified for Ohio:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-filing-deadlines-and-the-ohio-primary/

Those are the big ones, he's also qualifiied in TN, and Missouri has goofy rules and it seems likely the caucus will give him delegates.

So there, we've responded. Hopefully (but unlikely) this will be an object lesson for why you should seek out REAL information instead of living inside your little echo chamber.

Dogfish, did you say something about 3rd grade?

Hank,

Ignoring most of your post - I find that's usually the best policy - can we assume that your longing for the capital gains rates of yore also translates to a longing for the income tax rates of those same times?

In 1968 the rate on that portion of adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000 was 70%. In the middle of Ronald Reagan’s presidency that rate was 50%. Now, you guys cry crocodile tears for a millionaire paying way less than half that rate. To even suggest that the super wealthy pay even one half of historical rates is labeled class warfare. What has changed?

What everyone's deductions are.

There was a time I deducted car loan interest, credit card oh hell the list was really long. Never raised our taxes ( or so the elected congress says ) so they just got rid of deductions. Interesting way to look at it but folks buy it so we continue down the road. Just a lot of ducks in this country as they CHOOSE to believe the lying sacks of sh-- in both parties, and that is what they are smelly waste.

Ranty, really? In the context of this discussion, I think you've pretty much missed the boat.


The Boston Tea Party.

During the mid-1700s, England levied many new taxes on the American colonists, for such goods as wine, paper, sugar and tea. There were protests and boycotts througout the colonies. The stage of unrest had been set.
Then in 1773, the East India Company (which sold tea) was in financial difficulty. England allowed them to continue operating without having to pay any taxes or duties. Even though this move lowered the price of tea in the colonies, there was continued protest. The colonists felt that this move would give the East India Company an unfair monopoly, since they could now sell their tea cheaper than any of American merchants.

The patriots refused to pay for the tea they destroyed. So, in retaliation, the King of England passed a series of 'coercive' acts that were intended to bring the colonists back into line. From this point on, there were more and more revolts, and retaliation throughout the colony. These grew in size and scope, until 1776 when the United States of America declared independence from Britain.

No resemblance, other than they are/were both movements by political activists protesting against a government they feel are being over-reaching. 2.5 centuries ago they were patriots and now they are just tea baggers? It'd be funny, if you didn't take yourself so seriously.