Open Mic August 17
This week, we lost Ron Palillo, who played Arnold Horshack on Welcome Back, Kotter, to a heart attack. Mitt Romney insisted that he hasn’t paid less than 13 percent on his taxes, though interestingly he never said federal income taxes. Perhaps he’s using the sort of phrasing for which President Bill Clinton was famous. We won’t know, because he says he won’t let us see for ourselves. Yet another shooting, this time at a conservative think tank in the District of Columbia. This one appears to have been driven by political opposition. But apparently it’s still not the time to talk about gun violence in the United States. The XXX Olympics ended on Sunday, and we finally learned what made this Olympiad pornographic.
And here we are, at the end of the work week, for those Americans fortunate enough to have a job. Being Friday, it’s your day. What do you want to talk about?
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.

This entry was posted by Logarchism.com on August 17, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Open Mic. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by Unconventional 9 months ago
-
#4 written by rgbact 9 months ago
So what do the resident liberals think of the possibility of Biden getting replaced by Hillary? Evidently, Hillary was essentially offered the job and decided to pass. Do you think she should reconsider? Biden is off the rails at this point. Doesn’t know what state or century he’s in half the time and peddling racist rhetoric.
-
#5 written by Max 9 months ago
rgbact,
Ain’t happening. Your “evidently” needs proof, as you slip into fantasyland many times and your word alone is worth about half a Romney.
But it should be a right winger’s worst fear. A sitting VP running for election in 2016 in an economy most likely much improved versus today would be even MORE of a disaster for the GOP.
-
#6 written by rgbact 9 months ago
“A sitting VP running for election in 2016 in an economy most likely
much improved versus today would be even MORE of a disaster for
the GOP”Yeah, evidently thats what Bill Clinton was thinking. But I guess Hillary sees “going down in flames” as being more likely than being that sitting VP.
Anyway, guy with #2 book right now was spreading this rumor on CNBC last nite, so I assume it has merit. I didn’t believe it was a potential, thats why I asked.
-
Hillary was essentially offered the job and decided to pass.
rgbact, verifiable/certifiable citation please ie a non fixednoise, etc. source.
>
Looking forward to the v-p debate, Ryan foolishly sayin’ he welcomes the debate re: Medicare yesterday in Ohio.
Ryan = high expectations
Biden = low expectations
= Biden’s already won … you bet’cha! lol and when Biden does actually wipe the floor w/PR’s inadequacies, oh my!
>
“We” now return you to rgbact makin’ shit up!
-
Righties have been trying to start a rumor that Hillary would replace Biden as VP for the last three years. That’s when they haven’t been trying to start the rumor that Hillary would run against Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries, or would run for President as a third-party candidate.
Righties are almost as obsessive about Hillary as they are about Sarah Palin. I think it’s because they fantasize about the two of them mud wrestling.
Everyone knows that if any replacements occur, it’s going to be Romney running as Ryan’s Vice President.
-
#9 written by DrFunguy 9 months ago
Nothing personal RGB but” Is Hillary running for VP” considered the dumbest question in American history!
-
#10 written by DrFunguy 9 months ago
-
I still can’t figure out the message Romney wants to send with Ryan as his veep. Sure, he picks the intellectual force behind the Republican Party (a giant among mental midgets). But then he insists that Ryan’s recommendations are irrelevant because we’re supposed to listen to Romney’s plans instead. So why bother to pick Paul Ryan The Big Thinker, Big Plans Guy if we aren’t supposed to take his Big Plans into account?
It’s more Romney Slippery BS. A big part of Romney’s campaign is to avoid giving actual, you know, policy positions, with any details that can be actually, you know, considered. Romney has recognized that no one likes him and his wife dresses him funny, so he gets Mr. Kill Medicare to liven up the ticket. But no one likes Mr. Kill Medicare even more than they don’t like Romney, because granny loves her Medicare. So let’s all play Let’s Pretend We’re Not Killing Medicare And No I Never Suggested We Would, and by the way, don’t look (for God’s sake DON’T!) at Romney’s tax proposals (or tax returns).
And notice, we’ve lost Romney’s laser-like focus on jobs and the economy because neither Romney nor any other Republican has ever suggested anything that would actually create jobs or improve the economy.
By the way, Ryan the Fiscal Conservative has a voting record he doesn’t want you to look at.
Uhhh… should we go back to talking about contraceptives again?
-
WE’D TELL YOU, BUT THEN WE’D LOSE
Romney Advisers: Detailing Our Medicare Plan Would Be Suicidal
“To be sure, the debate is likely to be more sniping than substance — more attacks on Obama than parsing of the options for entitlement reform. Advisers say the campaign has no plans to pivot from its previous view that diving into details during a general-election race would be suicidal.”
The irony of … we’d tell seniors the details, but then we’d have to kill them!
-
Yeah shiloh. When Romney first named Ryan, all the media went gaa gaa over the thought of having some actual substance in the presidential discussion. But Romney’s advisers know the truth of it — discussing substance, talking about the details of Ryan’s and Romney’s plans, would doom them. If the public knew and understood what these hatchet men were planning to do, Republicans would lose not only the Presidential race, but the House and a half-dozen Senate seats. Honesty would kill them.
So they’re left with lying about what the ACA does with Medicare. Once more, Romney proves what is the basis of his campaign.
Oh, and what do they have for a foreign policy? Or military understandings? You know, the things that are the President’s primary responsibility? We know their education policy — dismantle the Department of Education, stop Pell Grants, and let all Americans fend for themselves. That’ll bring up test scores! (‘Course you don’t need much book learnin’ to flip burgers.
America’s crumbling infrastructure? The *magic!* of the Free Market will take care of that! (I have a collapsed bridge here in Minneapolis to sell ya…)
And don’t even mention the environment or climate change. Fingers in ears la la la! I’m not listening! (There’s an old joke about a Christian Scientist in Hell, and the punchline is, “This place is not hot, and I am not here.”)
But at least we’d finally get the National Endowment for the Arts de-funded. Sure, it’s not much money, but we can’t have artists being well-endowed. Public television? Can’t have that. There are kids getting an edjukashun from it! Stop that and go wash your hands.
With any luck, things will go even better in the next presidential election, I think that’s in 1860.…
-
#15 written by Max 9 months ago
-
Paul Ryan blames Obama for GM plant closed in 2008 under Bush
Paul Ryan blames Obama for GM plant closed in 2008 under Bush
“GM stopped production at its Janesville, Wisconsin production facility in 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, but according to Paul Ryan the person to blame is President Obama.
As you can see in the video at the top of the post, Ryan told a crowd in North Canton, Ohio yesterday that the president’s energy policies had led to the factory’s closure in 2009. Ryan delivered the attack in personal terms, saying he had high school buddies who worked at the factory. “A lot of my high school buddies worked at that GM plant,” Ryan said. “One of the reasons that plant got shut down is $4 gasoline. You see, this costs jobs. The president’s terrible energy policies are costing us jobs.”
But despite Ryan’s emotional story, GM announced the plant’s closure in June of 2008. In October of 2008, the date was accelerated from 2010 to the end of the year. And on December 23, 2008 the last SUV rolled off the line.
Ryan said the factory closed because gas prices had climbed to $4 per gallon. Gas prices were that high, but that was in June of 2008, when George W. Bush was the president. Gas prices today are lower than they were then, though they do remain high.
Ryan also claimed the President Obama had promised to keep the factory open—but that’s not true according to The Detroit News, USA Today, and TPM.
Bottom line: Without the benefit of facts, Ryan’s story sounded compelling, but once you learn what really happened, you quickly realize Ryan was telling a tall tale that was just too perfect to be true. And with that kind of thing starting to become a pattern with Ryan, it’s no wonder that Mitt Romney likes him so much.
12:37 PM PT (kos): To add—Ryan is INSISTENT that the plant closed because of bad energy policy. Hence, it was George W. Bush’s energy policy that closed down that plant. So how is Mitt Romney’s energy policy any different?”
>
Indeed, the not ready for prime time boys er ((( liars ))) have had quite a week!
-
#19 written by WA7th 9 months ago
The three members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison.
Not that I don’t support free speech, I wholly support free speech (as long as I agree with what’s said), but I either don’t understand or don’t buy the sanctimonious free speech spin of this particular example. If the same thing had happened at a comparable place of worship in the U.S., does any of you imagine that the perps would get off with something like a charge of disturbing the peace or less? I think they would have been crucified by the religious right at the very least, and probably charged with assault, reckless endangerment, inciting a riot, maybe a hate crime or two.
Sure, everyone knows what Putin is, but this doesn’t seem like the most honest example of free speech suppression in the world, but merely the prettiest example. Pardon my cynicism, but if three fat bastards had pulled that stunt, we’d have heard nothing of their life sentences in a labor camp.
-
#20 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#22 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#23 written by Max 9 months ago
-
Just have to say .…
It strikes me as intensely and bizarrely hypocritical, for Republicans to have blocked Obama’s programs (like the American Jobs Act), and then to complain that Obama didn’t create jobs.
I mean, if they had allowed the programs to be enacted, and they didn’t work, that would be a valid complaint.“Hey, we enacted all this, and nothing happened!” But having prevented the programs from being enacted, to then complained that they didn’t work, that’s kind of absurd, isn’t it?
Please, one of our conservative commenters, explain this to me. After having blocked Obama’s attempts to create jobs, how is it reasonable to complain that Obama didn’t create jobs? I really want to know.
-
#25 written by rgbact 9 months ago
“But having prevented the programs from being enacted, to then
complained that they didn’t work, that’s kind of absurd, isn’t it?”Not really. Obama got his original Stimulus. Given its lackluster results, the GOP would have to be complete fools to help Obama double down. It would be like Reagan passing his 1981 tax cuts, having the economy still sputter, having a record deficit as a result, and then Reagan asking Dems in Congress for more tax cuts. Bottom line is Obama got much of his initial agenda.…he has to own its failure and not expect people to follow him out of blind faith.
-
#26 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
AW: Yes, that is what happened.
rgbact: The original stimulus was only a fraction of what it should have been. It still stopped the bleeding, turned the 800,000 jobs/month loss into gains, and reversed the Bush recession into economic gains (for three years now). In spite of being mostly tax cuts instead of stimulus spending.
And then the Republicans blocked everything else the President wanted to try.
Do you want to offer another excuse, or can you explain the Republican hypocrisy as it was?
-
By the way, the “stimulus that didn’t work” has so far created two or three times as many jobs as Bush did in eight years after Bush was given a booming economy. So, rgbact, will you try again to explain why, having prevented the President’s programs from being enacted, to then complain that they didn’t work — that is kind of absurd, isn’t it? If not, what am I missing?
-
-
#30 written by DrFunguy 9 months ago
“
Obama got his original Stimulus.“Sorry, two thirds of that was in the form of tax cuts which do little to grow the economy. That was not ‘his’ stimulus, that was all Congress would give. And as has frequently been pointed out, the total even including tax cuts was inadequate. So again, the Republicans block the program then call it a failure.
-
As Mono said (4) days ago …
That didn’t take long!
Ryan Directed To Avoid Real Issues, Stress ‘Love Of The Outdoors’
” Mitt Romney wants Risky Pick to play it safe.
Ryan, the nation’s most controversial budget architect, is often described as the intellectual leader of the House Republican caucus. But Romney’s presidential campaign headquarters in Boston seems, for now, to prefer that the 42-year-old father of three talks about camping and milking cows instead of the fiscal proposals that made him a conservative hero.”
Again, the most important decision a wannabe pres has to make mittens botched! btw, sometimes HP’s ad nauseam hyperbolic headlines just make you smile.
-
#32 written by Unconventional 9 months ago
-
#33 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
For the first time since the beginning of the year, the “Republicans gain seats in the House” contract is worth less than the “Democrats gain control of the House” contract on Iowa Electronic Markets.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_House12.cfm
Right now, it’s 64% for Republicans to hold, 18% for Democrats to take over, and 17% for Republicans to gain seats.
On Intrade, it’s about the same (slightly different contract): 85% for Republicans to hold or gain, 20% for Democrats to take over.
Both markets have moved considerably toward the Democratic side since Rep. Ryan was announced as the potential VP candidate.
-
Re: turdblossom’s er conservative billionaire overlords ad nauseam negative advertising and the Rep convention ratings: Would be very surprised if anyone watches other than the con choir ie Obama haters!
The tv rating competition increasing every (4) years notwithstanding and most folk already knowing who they’re voting for aside, indeed what’s the incentive to watch.
So I want to give McCain some dap lol for pickin’ mama grizzly as at least it gave viewers a reason to watch.
Yea, political conventions may be going the route of the Miss America Pageant … nobody cares! To break it down to basics
conventions are reality tv where everyone knows the outcome. :zzzz: -
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
Didn't find any related posts :(





Romney said he looked at his taxes for the last decade.
Three things:
1) Harry Reid never said the ten years Romney paid no taxes occurred in the last decade. Romney left Bain Capital somewhere around 1999 to 2002. The ten years of no taxes was probably before he left Bain.
2) Romney’s public statements are mostly lies or, at best, half-truths. Why should anyone believe this statement of his?
3) If he’s telling the truth, he should release his records and embarrass Harry Reid, probably then ensuring Reid would be defeated in his reëlection bid, possibly even forcing him to resign on ethics issues. Either Reid is right (and Romney is lying), or there must be really, really toxic things in Romney’s tax returns to prevent him from using them to take Reid down.
Romney needs to release his tax returns.