Sensible Erection | Romney saves biggest mistake for last day of overseas trip

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Romney saves biggest mistake for last day of overseas trip

quote [ Romney's New Press Outreach: "Kiss My Ass"

Romney has all but ignored the chaos and upset and gaffes of his sorry-ass foreign tour. He has had the transparency of Palin and none of the charm: ]

If he thought the traveling press corps were loud and rude before....just wait till they get back home.

Romney has learned this diplomacy shit is a lot harder than it looks. He has managed to piss somebody off no matter where he went. Even on this friendly place only short 3 country tour.

But when you piss off the people who follow you around...all the time... after shunning them. You have really stepped on your......message. These people have been following him around for months and now there story is getting on the tube I doubt if they slow down now.

Don't think this is a coincidence that this comes out the day he gets back either.

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Those reporters will have more stuff to scream at him every time he sticks his head out side. He is not going to be able to duck all these questions for 3 months. He will hear them echo in his sleep.

He either has to take a daily pounding from Team Obama and now the press or release the Taxes.
Ohh wait he can't release the taxes...if he could he would have done it already.

If the Dems were to use tactics as low as the GOP, they would have people asking if he took a deduction for a contribution to the Nazi Party...no matter what they insinuate he can't defend himself they can say anything...anything.

If you could ask Romney a question what would it be?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#48431319

[politics] [by bbqkink@4:41amGMT] [+2 Overrated]

Comments

zsander said @ 4:46am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
My question: "Mister Romney, it's your well-known belief that 'Corporations are People'. If this is the case, then corporations should be extended the rights due American citizens, such as justice. They're people, right? So, having crashed multiple companies while working at Bain, and profited massively from their bankruptcies, would this mean we can charge you with multiple counts of murder and grand theft?"

(Or retroactively sentence Bain to execution, and retroactively forfeit any profits to its parasit--er, leaders such as yourself?)

ahPook said @ 5:21am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
You're forgetting that as a time traveller, he could retroactively retire before he started working at Bain.

zsander said @ 5:37am GMT on 1st Aug
Romney's a Time Lord?

sanepride said @ 6:24am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Funny]
More like some kind of time twit.

endopol said @ 8:11am GMT on 1st Aug
Time Cock

backSLIDER said @ 8:48am GMT on 1st Aug
the master!

granitewitch said @ 11:46am GMT on 1st Aug
...bator.

KingPellinore said @ 12:51pm GMT on 1st Aug
Sonic Magicunderwear!

bruceski said @ 5:01am GMT on 1st Aug
It kinda loses its effect when you censor the comment, I had to listen three times to confirm he (probably) said what it said he said.

Also, where did this occur? I'm curious what counts as a Polish holy site.

sanepride said @ 5:30am GMT on 1st Aug
That's a setup for a Polish joke if ever I heard one.

bruceski said @ 6:36am GMT on 1st Aug
Well unless Polish (Poldaism?) is a religion it's an odd phrase to use. What would one call an American holy site? Arlington Cemetery demands respect, may even be called sacred, but it isn't holy.

arrowhen said @ 9:19am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Disneyland? Walmart? Any sporting arena ending in "-dome"?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 5:32pm GMT on 1st Aug
DisneyWalDome.

TWO MEGACORPS ENTER! ONE MEGACORP LEAVES!
TWO MEGACORPS ENTER! ONE MEGACORP LEAVES!

Chop-Logik said @ 6:51pm GMT on 1st Aug
Mergers & Aquisitiondome.

EPT said @ 6:34am GMT on 1st Aug
The birthplace of Lech Walesa?

bbqkink said @ 6:46am GMT on 1st Aug
At a tomb for unknowns.... Kiss my ass...this is a holy site...stuff it..all doesn't goes together.
If he would have said hey this is a holy place..shut up Don't ask those kind of questions here. We would all be saying how rude the press core is.

bruceski said @ 7:15am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
I think you're using ellipses where you mean to use full stops. It makes you sound like Madpride. Or like you're trying to say something while out of breath and in a hurry to go running off elsewhere.

rndmnmbr said @ 5:43am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:3]
Mr. Romney, are allegations that you assisted Glenn Beck with the 1990 rape and murder of a young girl true?

devilsad said @ 10:14pm GMT on 1st Aug
I'm not saying it's true, but it is worrying that neither of the accused have yet provided any evidence to refute this serious allegation of conspiracy to commit rape and murder of a young girl in 1990, isn't it?

spite48 said @ 11:59pm GMT on 1st Aug
I don't know about worrying, but you'd think that an innocent person would immediately respond and deny any allegations about conspiring to rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

Naruki said @ 2:17am GMT on 2nd Aug
I think it's quite damning that the young girl in question has also refused to testify on their behalves. Any reasonable person would have to find that VERY suspicious.

sanepride said @ 3:02am GMT on 2nd Aug
You know what's suspicious? The very real possibility that Romney could have deducted the cost of the murder weapon on his tax returns. Maybe that's why he won't release them.

Navier-Strokes said @ 5:50am GMT on 2nd Aug
Not gonna lie, can't see Romney consorting with someone as plebeian as Beck in 1990.

Didel said @ 5:45am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Informative]
To be fair, and it's not made all that clear in the main link (yay, shitty journalism!) that it was the Romney press aide that told the reporters to kiss his ass, not Romney himself. I had first thought it was Romney due to the title of this post and the title of the posted article.

What happened to actually reporting the events as they occurred with out the rather shitty editorializing? (this isn't directed at you bbqkink, but rather The Beast).

sanepride said @ 6:09am GMT on 1st Aug
To still be fair, the tagline at the top of Andrew Sullivan's column is 'Biased and Balanced'. Editorializing is exactly what I would expect.

schatten00777 said @ 4:32pm GMT on 1st Aug
In defense of the Beast, Romney chooses the people that work for him. So while I wouldn't go far as to say "Romney said this," I would say he's still responsible for the comment.

Nostrildamus said @ 5:49am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:3 Insightful]
"Romney has learned this diplomacy shit is a lot harder than it looks."

The guy has learned nothing.

NickelJoe said @ 2:51pm GMT on 1st Aug
When you live your life in a protective bubble of money you really don't need to learn anything. I would love to ask him if he understands basic human concepts like how a person's actions can have consequences.

sanepride said @ 6:24am GMT on 1st Aug
If the Dems were to use tactics as low as the GOP, they would have people asking if he took a deduction for a contribution to the Nazi Party...no matter what they insinuate he can't defend himself they can say anything

In fact this is exactly the tactic Reid is using with the 'no taxes paid in 10 years' innuendo. He has absolutely no evidence, just gossip from someone connected with Bain. This bit is right out of Glenn Beck's playbook:
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

bbqkink said @ 6:53am GMT on 1st Aug
They have got him in a, how look has it been since you have stopped beating your wife? territory.
The story can change everyday. The messenger can change but the question is always. what are you hiding....so and so says that you.....is there any truth to that...will you prove it?...then what are you hiding.

bruceski said @ 7:16am GMT on 1st Aug
And you keep bringing that up like it's a good thing?

bbqkink said @ 3:27pm GMT on 1st Aug
Yes, a good thing indeed.

bruceski said @ 6:37pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
I'm more in favor of hitting actual flaws, not trap doublespeak questions. That stuff may be impossible to remove from campaigns but this isn't a campaign room. You're preaching to (in the majority of folks on this site) the choir here. Let's stick to the actual issues (and their resulting spin) rather than the substanceless spin.

bbqkink said @ 12:35am GMT on 2nd Aug
Your dreaming if you think you can get Mitt Romney onto a debate about facts.
First I'm not sure you can believe anything he says.
Second you can almost always find him saying exactly the opposite when he does make a statement about policy.
What issue ....there aren't any.

bruceski said @ 12:52am GMT on 2nd Aug
I don't think I can get him in a debate on SE at all.

sanepride said @ 2:11am GMT on 2nd Aug
Maybe incpenners can get him.

Mitt Romney said @ 2:20am GMT on 2nd Aug
Kiss my ass.

spite48 said @ 8:11pm GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:2 Funny]
I accept. I will literally kiss your anus, provided that we can photograph it and distribute the photographic evidence of harmless homoerotic activity to your rabidly homophobic constituents.

bbqkink said @ 4:51pm GMT on 2nd Aug
I don't think he can duck these....The question is will he answer any questions.

2012 Presidential Debate Schedule

October 3, 2012
Obama/Romney Topic: Domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado..

(Just a few blocks from the shooting in the movie theater )

October 16, 2012
Obama/Romney Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York

October 22, 2012
Obama/Romney Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

bruceski said @ 12:35am GMT on 3rd Aug
My point is that you are not debating Romney. You will never debate Romney. Obama will, but you will not and SE will not be the venue. What good are trap questions?

To clarify:
"Romney refuses to release his income tax records." Issue that can be discussed.
"He must be hiding something." Non-useful statement, because if they are released and there isn't anything there the response will be "he must have hidden it."

willrogers said @ 3:01am GMT on 3rd Aug
Possibly, but there are plenty of people that will go, "Yeah, he wasn't hiding anything. I was wrong about that but why did Romney take so long to release records that aren't hiding anything or damaging whatsoever? It's just another example of his contempt for the 99% of Americans who aren't rich patrician assholes."

bbqkink said @ 7:06pm GMT on 4th Aug
I can't tell if you are really stupid or if you are really being snarkey. I am not running for President of the United states..Ah and Romney may be a liar and all but he isn't going to ever visit a web page that tells you you have to jack off a horse.

To clarify: (it is called politics)

"He must be hiding something." Non-useful statement.. BULLSHIT

It shows a pattern of behavior a looong pattern.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

foobar said @ 6:09pm GMT on 1st Aug
The problem with that question is that it's phrased as a binary with both answers presuming you beat your wife.

Romney could just release his tax returns.

conception said @ 6:43pm GMT on 1st Aug
But should a candidate have to answer to every baseless accusation against him? It was a poor precedent for birthers and it still isn't a good one.

sanepride said @ 7:47pm GMT on 1st Aug
You're drawing comparisons between two totally different things.
The accusations of the birthers are not only baseless but also paranoid racist insanity. And yet Obama did answer them, providing full documentation of his birthplace, not that he had to and not that it makes any difference to paranoid racists.
Romney's taxes on the other hand are a relevant issue, since his main claim that he's qualified to be president is his business acumen. His taxes provide the best insight into his claim and he should have fully expected this would come up. That he seems to have been caught off guard shows a really amazing lack of obvious foresight and judgement, and his refusal to provide answers invites speculation and accusation. It may indeed be baseless, but as Reid said, how can we really know?

DeadCarbonCopy said @ 8:41pm GMT on 1st Aug
another difference is that traditionally presidential candidates release more than 1 year of tax info. This is opposed to the release of a birth certificate which has not (to my knowledge) been requested before.

sanepride said @ 9:26pm GMT on 1st Aug
Quite right. And as had been pointed out- when questions about his business dealings arose when he ran for president in 1968 George Romney released 12 years of tax returns without hesitation.

backSLIDER said @ 8:54am GMT on 1st Aug
I don't think this was the biggest gaff of the trip. But a war memorial isn't holy either. And Mittens didn't say anything.. agian! Really I don't know where he stands on anything except that he wants to cut taxes for the 1% and he isn't Obama. That is his whole platform as far as I can tell.

bbqkink said @ 3:15pm GMT on 1st Aug
It wasn't a gaff. He has pissed of and challenged the reporters who are constantly with him..that is a mistake. A mistake that sets him up for a constant barrage of questions he can't or won't answer..every day all day. for the rest of the campaign.

coffeejoejava said @ 10:18am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:-5]
What galls me is that I heard none of this outcry when Obama made his "Apology Tour" through Europe and around the world, bowing before Kings and shit.

Not a Romney fan but anything but the shit I have seen coming out of Washington and the White House in particular over the last 3 1/2years.....esp the first two of those.

chold_numa said @ 10:38am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:5 Insightful]
Are you serious? The whole Obama bowing before European royalty was given more prominence than it was due. Bowing is protocol. By doing it, he was making the gesture that the US would respect the customs of other countries. Unlike his predecessor. Who was a disaster.

It might offend your rah-rah United States steroid grown sense of patriotism, but after destabilising the Middle East AND being asleep at the wheel over financial regulation, eating a tiny crumb of humble pie appears to be very little to ask. I'm personally glad that you (collectively, as Americans) at least seemed to have perhaps decided to turn over a new leaf by electing someone competent, but sadly, given the polls, this appears not to be a flash in the pan.

sanepride said @ 2:45pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
Sure, it starts with 'protocol'. Next thing you know we've got people marrying dogs, socialized medicine, and Sharia law. It's a slippery slope y'know.

coffeejoejava said @ 10:20pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:-5 Overrated]
Eat humble pie!?!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me!?!?! We, the United States of America, are the most powerful nation in the world. We spend more fucking money saving putrid little fucking hell holes around the world than any other 30 countries combined. Remember the tsunami in 2004? I damn straight do. 48 hours after it happened, I was on a shitty little airstrip in Indonesia coordinating the flood of relief coming from? The USA. For over a week, all I saw was American donated relief supplies then the trickle of other countries started.

Ever learn about WWII? Europe was lost. Only England stood...alone. It was not until who? The USA started the Arsenal of Democracy to end the Terri of the fascists. Less than 5 years after we got involved it was over. What did we do? Diid we go home and leave all Europe in ruins? Hell no. We came up with a little plan called the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe.

Europe should bow to us for saving them.....twice.

sanepride said @ 10:35pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:2 Insightful]
In a way you make an interesting point here. Really it's too bad we can't do even more of this 'saving putrid little fucking hell holes around the world' because we keep getting stuck in destructive and pointless adventures like Iraq. And even righteous involvements like WWII are diminished by debacles like Vietnam.
Ultimately the question is - when we use our awesome power to actually do good in the world, shouldn't we just do it because it's the right thing to do- instead of as an exercise in showing how all-mighty we are?

hen3ry said @ 10:40pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:3 Informative]
Your history is bad and you should feel bad. The Russians won the Second World War, and sacrificed enormously to do so. Do you even mention that? No. You arsehole.

willrogers said @ 12:40am GMT on 2nd Aug
The Russians were largely responsible in winning the European theatre against the Nazis (the Lend-Lease act was instrumental in giving the Russians the resources needed to survive and win), but the US quite obviously won the Pacific theatre against the Japanese.

Lend-Lease was arguably the US' most important contribution to the European theatre.

sanepride said @ 1:44am GMT on 2nd Aug
I wouldn't completely discount the US and allied campaign in Western Europe. Sure the Ruskies may very well have defeated the Nazis alone, but they also may have just kept going to Calais or beyond. It's kind of a cliche to say that without the US involvement the French and British would now be speaking German, more likely they'd be speaking Russian.

Navier-Strokes said @ 5:55am GMT on 2nd Aug
The Russians won WWII by themselves? Well, shit. Public knowledge and common sense has misinformed me. Here, I thought the US coming into the war forced the Germans to battle on two fronts, thus destabilizing their defenses so that Russia's "attack them or I'll shoot you myself" offensive mentality had a chance at pushing back against the German offense.

hellboy said @ 7:13am GMT on 2nd Aug
As bad as the Western Front was, the Eastern Front was far worse. And the Russians were the ones who took Berlin. They didn't win WWII by themselves (and hen3ry didn't say they did), and there's no questioning the significance of D-Day and all that followed, but the Russians DID do the lion's share of beating the Nazis, and they paid for it dearly, too. Credit where credit is due.

hellboy said @ 7:20am GMT on 2nd Aug
To give you an idea of how much worse: the Soviet Union had more than 20 million dead from the war, nearly half of those military deaths. Twenty million. Nothing the Americans suffered comes close to that.

GordonGuano said @ 7:31am GMT on 2nd Aug
There was a silver lining to Russia losing 10% of her population: the men that were left could pick and choose pretty much whoever they wanted, resulting in a disproportionate amount of insanely hot Russian women today.

assbastard said @ 7:34am GMT on 2nd Aug
That's thinkin' with your head!

Navier-Strokes said @ 12:31pm GMT on 2nd Aug
He says the Russians won the war, which is demonstrably not true. Also, that Russia made it to Berlin from the east faster than the U.S. from the west could just as well be a function that Germany was spending most of its time doing its last hurrah at the Battle of the Bulge on the western front.

As for lost lives, you may need to factor into the account that, as I referenced, Russia killed its own people in the war. I mean that literally. "The Russian soldiers were not stupid and realized they were mere cannon fodder, almost certainly doomed to die an unnecessary death as a direct result of the imbecility of their own leaders. This made it necessary for the Russians to routinely employ "blocking units". These were Russian units deployed right behind the troops on the front line, with orders to kill any Russians trying to retreat or run away." So yes, Russia had massive losses of life, but part of the blame for that falls on, well, Stalin being a fucking maniac, and an idiot to boot.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 6:04pm GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:3 Insightful]
The point is that winning World War II was not something that the U.S.A. did all by itself like some sort of superhero.

hellboy said @ 8:17pm GMT on 2nd Aug
Right. Which people are strangely adamant about not recognizing. Even if fully 75% of Soviet casualties were self-inflicted (actual estimates are much lower), they would have had an order of magnitude more deaths than the Americans. If the Nazis hadn't had to kill so many Russians, how well would the US have done with their own two-front war? No one is saying that the Soviets won the war single-handedly (so let's leave that straw man in Stalingrad), but acting like the US played an equivalent role is sheer nonsense.

Navier-Strokes said @ 9:50pm GMT on 2nd Aug
My point is that winning World War II was not something that Russia did all by itself like some sort of superhero. Similarly, using their losses as support for that assertion is, as I was pointing out, a fallacious argument. It was, not surprisingly, a group effort, and suggestions to the contrary are ill-supportable at best.

The only argument I could, or would, substantively make is that the U.S. did a far better job at military strategy than Russia.

hen3ry said @ 11:12pm GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Let's look at German casualties inflicted, if you don't like casualties suffered as a measure. Eastern front: 1.1 million Germans dead, 1.0 million missing/POW. Everywhere else: 0.5 million dead (counting all died from wounds), 0.6 million missing/POW. That seems like a pretty clear win for the USSR there. Once again, I must state that the Second World War was won by the Russians, with help from everyone else. The USA may have beaten the Japanese (with much help from Britain, China, Thailand etc.), but the Russians did the bulk of the work.

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:35am GMT on 3rd Aug
If you want, you can include about half a million Japanese deaths due to the US (the US alone). POWs not included, but honestly the point is both the US and Russia dealt damage to the Axis powers in WWII. Russia may have dealt more (although, much like Britain and China helped on the Pacific front, so too did eastern Europe help Russia), but that at least stands to reason as they were in the war longer, and still by no stretch could you reasonably claim that Russia "won" WWII.

Both the US and Russia dealt heavy blows to the opposition. Take either one out and the war would have ended differently.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:18am GMT on 3rd Aug
Bragging about how good one is at killing people is not a good way for a nation to win friends.

hen3ry said @ 11:01pm GMT on 2nd Aug
The US coming into the war did not force the Germans to battle on two fronts. The Germans attacked the Soviet union in June 1941, opening their second front, whilst the USA didn't officially enter the war until December 1941. You may argue that refusing to sell oil to "aggressors" in August was the start of their serious involvement in the war, but this is still _after_ the beginning of operation Barbarossa. The US helped, certainly, but did not win the war, and did not win the war alone, as the films like to portray. Once again, the part played, and sacrifice made, by Russia is downplayed. Bastards.

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:37am GMT on 3rd Aug
Africa. Italian shores, France. Battle of the Bulge. Which of these does not qualify as a second front? Really curious how you define a second front.

hen3ry said @ 8:28am GMT on 3rd Aug
You seem to have forgotten Britain in your calculations. I understand that teaching in the USA is something people like to complain about, but I didn't know it was this bad. Let me spell this out for you:

1939: Germany invades Poland, UK, France, India, Australia, New Zealand declare war. USSR starts carving up Eastern Europe. Japan and China continue their hostilities. Germany fighting on two fronts, Poland and France. USA sells arms on cash only basis.

1940: Germany captures France, Norway, most of Europe, signs pact with Italy, Japan (Axis). North African front opens up, fighting in Greece. Battle of Britain. USA sells ships to Britain for land. Germany now fighting in Mediterranean and North Africa. German invasion of Britain postponed indefinitely.

1941: Germany fights Britain in the air in Europe, and in North Africa. Basically we have a single front here. In June, Germany attacks Soviet Union - Second Front. Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, Thailand, British Malaya, Allies and US declare war on Japan, US declares war on Germany.

So, we have a clear timeline - Germany fighting both East and West in June. America enters war in December. Now, I once again state that the USA entering the war did not force Germany to fight on two fronts, they were doing that before the USA entered the war. You seem to conveniently forget that Britain bankrupted the worlds largest empire, and Russia sacrificed so many, in favour of some twisted American Exceptionalist revisions to history. Please don't.

1941:

pleaides said @ 10:01am GMT on 3rd Aug
"1939: Germany invades Poland, UK, France, India, Australia..."

Hehehehe

Barnabas_Truman said @ 10:06am GMT on 3rd Aug
This is why semicolons are important! I've been telling them for years that semicolons are important, but they never listened! WELL, THEY'LL LISTEN NOW!

Navier-Strokes said @ 1:55pm GMT on 3rd Aug
Being snarky and rebutting with a technicality. Nice. Incessantly bombing England and holing them up at their own island so that Germany needn't worry about any serious counteroffensives coming from Britain's end does technically count as a second front. Then perhaps we can call Africa a third front, thinning their military strength even further, which includes preoccupying Germany's star general the Desert Fox. Or is that too revisionist? I could include Italy in that calculation, but that too sounds like a technicality.

hen3ry said @ 5:34pm GMT on 3rd Aug
You said:

Navier-Strokes said @ 5:55am GMT on 2nd Aug - moderate/reply
The Russians won WWII by themselves? Well, shit. Public knowledge and common sense has misinformed me. Here, I thought the US coming into the war forced the Germans to battle on two fronts, thus destabilizing their defenses so that Russia's "attack them or I'll shoot you myself" offensive mentality had a chance at pushing back against the German offense.

I have pointed out that America didn't open up a second, or even any additional fronts, by coming into the war. Now you are complaining that there were more than two fronts? A little consistency, please. But sure, if you really care that much, we can all agree that America helped shorten the war, probably leading to much saving of life. Hooray for less dead people!

bbqkink said @ 4:59pm GMT on 2nd Aug
If you will remember Russia didn't start out that way.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed in August 1939 was a non-aggression agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union

later

The two powers invaded and partitioned Poland in 1939. After Finland refused the terms of a Soviet pact of mutual assistance, the USSR invaded Finland in November 1939 in what became known as the Winter War – a bitter conflict that only resulted in partial Soviet victory. In June 1940, the USSR occupied and illegally annexed the three Baltic states—an action in violation of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and numerous bi-lateral conventions and treaties signed between the USSR and Baltics—and never recognized by most Western states.[9] The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ostensibly provided security to Soviets in the occupation of both the Baltics and the north and northeastern regions of Romania (Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia)—although Hitler in announcing invasion of the USSR cited the Soviet annexations of Baltic and Romanian territory as having violated Germany's understanding of the Pact. The annexed Romanian territory was divided between the Ukrainian and Moldavian Soviet republics.

Pinochet said @ 11:08pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:5 Insightful]
I for one salute what the US has done for my political career.

assbastard said @ 12:04am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Yeah, 'cause Empathy's awesome as long as other people are watching!

zsander said @ 12:20am GMT on 2nd Aug

lilmookieesquire said @ 1:13am GMT on 2nd Aug
I like this until he starts getting into the golden-age humble-pie bullshit.

Point and case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968)

and more recently:

http://makeitso57.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/baby-boomers-the-worst-generation/

cb361 said @ 2:33pm GMT on 3rd Aug
It's still patriotism-porn. Just patriotism-porn for the slightly more intellectual.

coffeejoejava said @ 10:35am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:-1]
I have never seen that before. And, although I know it is a television show and a scripted actor, it rings rather true.

I may be a right leaning conservative but I am also not a mindless drone. I can listen to others opinions and take them under consideration.

I am simple in my beliefs: the government is not a safety net for people or businesses. If you fail...YOU FAIL...no bailouts, no handouts. NAFTA was the stupidest decision ever made by this government and all those who voted for it should be stung up. Opened the doors to let all our manufacturing jobs leave. Citizens, if left alone, can do amazing things and accomplish most anything if given the enviroment to excel. EVERYONE can contribute no matter what their percieved limitations.

Navier-Strokes said @ 1:11pm GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:-1]
Wait, hold on. I need to make sure I understand your perspective correctly.
Are you saying you're pro-business and opposed to free trade?

coffeejoejava said @ 4:24pm GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:-1]
Free trade is a two way street. When you have competitors that artificially keep their currency so low that their products are cheaper than everyone elses(China) then I am opposed to trade with that country.

Could you imagine the world chaos that would ensue if the USA pegged its currency and only allowed a 5%swing each year? Read and learn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/05/25/china-currency-manipulator-no-more/

Navier-Strokes said @ 4:15am GMT on 5th Aug [Score:-1]
So, as the article suggests, China is maintaining it by soaking up Treasury bonds. If the U.S. was to attempt stabilizing its currency like you suggest, it would have to buy up other currencies to do that. I really don't see that happening, at least not to the level that China does. Furthermore, seriously, that in no way implicates Mexico or Canada from currency manipulations.

You may want to look into International Economics. It goes over the benefits of free trade quite a bit.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 6:06pm GMT on 2nd Aug
Citizens, if left alone, can do amazing things and accomplish most anything if given the enviroment to excel.

Government is one of the amazing things that citizens, left alone, have accomplished.

What's wrong with the idea of a safety net?

Silent said @ 12:29am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
Dude, attitudes like yours are the reason why (some) Americans need to eat humble pie.
No one is arguing what America has helped to achieve globally, but expecting to get some kind of pass for it is unreal, like a kid expecting to not have to say "Please" or "Thank you" because he is good at football.

willrogers said @ 12:44am GMT on 2nd Aug
You should probably ask people who live in South and Central America how wonderful the US has been for them.

The US is responsible for installing and propping up numerous violent dictators including Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, and Noriega in Panama, and frequently supported right-wing death squads like the Contras in Nicaragua and the AUC in Colombia. This doesn't even include all the sponsorship and support tyrannical governments and death squads received from American corporations to protect their interests in those nations at the expense of pretty much everyone else who lived there.

Naruki said @ 2:28am GMT on 2nd Aug
You forgot Osama!

chold_numa said @ 4:14am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:-1]
A good part of that money is in weapons, which is generally less beneficial than say, building real, viable economies, providing clean water, training doctors and engineers, or delivering outcomes that actually benefited the majority of people in that "hell hole". The US has the capacity for greatness due to its vast wealth, strong military and cultural reach, but rather than exercise these attributes wisely, it has more often than not used them to benefit itself at the expense of others, for economic reasons rather than the values it claims to embody.

The West, generally doesn't do enough for the developing world. Our lifestyles come very much at their expense. I believe that most Americans are generous of heart, but honestly, this manifest destiny/American exceptionalism thing is ridiculous. Having the only untouched industrial economy after WW2 has gone to your head. In many strange and disturbing ways. This advantage is gradually and steadily being eroded, and rather than trying to lead and direct the nations coming up towards industrial and post-industrial societies, you stand at the top of the hill, trying to kick others down. This isn't behaviour becoming of the leader of the Free World.

At the core of it, there's this idea that America is different, and different rules should apply. That you are better than other people because you've had the foresight to be born in the US, that you are smarter, better, more morally pure than those filthy, uneducated people who live in these hell holes. That you can live off of the things your forebears did rather than be judged on what you do now. That you are great because they were great. That because you pick up litter on the street that it's OK to beat your child. This is wrong. I say a little humility would improve you immensely, because as it stands, you can't see what you do wrong.

willrogers said @ 11:07am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:4 Insightful]
Sorry, but bowing is a cultural custom around the world. It's a sign of respect and cultural sensitivity, not fealty or obedience. It's just one person being kind and understanding to another person and not all the stupid bullshit outrage invented by conservatives who just hate on Obama merely for existing.

Also, where were you when George W. Bush kissed and held hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?

erich wiess said @ 11:17am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:5 Funny]

Petrolsexuals.

willrogers said @ 11:14am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:2]
Ha, "Apology Tour."

You honestly don't think relations were damaged with our traditional allies during the Bush years and didn't need repairs?

You honestly don't think that other nations were legitimately pissed off at things like demonizing them for not supporting the Iraq War, kidnapping their citizens on their soil, reditioning terrorist and combatant suspects for torture by proxy, lying to them about Iraq having WMDs, and various other terrible things done by the Bush Administration and required some kind of acknowledgement of how terrible our government and nation acted towards them?

sanepride said @ 4:23pm GMT on 1st Aug
Sure, plus the fact that the so-called 'apology tour', like so many right-wing neologisms, is a complete fallacy.

willrogers said @ 12:28am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
I'm saying that even if it was an "apology tour" it was a good and necessary thing to fix the problems caused by the Bush Administration.

It's just another example of how much baggage Obama has to deal with from the previous administration.

sanepride said @ 2:20pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:2 WTF]
This is just for you coffeejoe.
It's tough dealing with the big scary world out there. Love ya man.

sanepride said @ 2:40pm GMT on 1st Aug
Oh, and if that video has you all a-scared and fuming at Obama's apologizing to everyone, this should calm you down:
Sharp Decline in Terror Attacks After Bin Laden Death.

EPT said @ 2:41pm GMT on 1st Aug
"An end to American exceptionalism"? You mean, like the way you are promoting an end to the kind of thinkers who say "those who would trade liberty for convenience deserve neither"? I mean, that's a classic uber-patriot line right there, but that is what you're selling, yeah?

Who is this crazy bint?

sanepride said @ 2:49pm GMT on 1st Aug
Just some actor playing a concerned typical American.
Hey, it's a paycheck.

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:54am GMT on 2nd Aug

HoZay said @ 6:15pm GMT on 1st Aug
There was no apology tour. Just another republican lie made up by carl rove and repeated by people who have no actual argument for their side.

Eru said @ 11:54am GMT on 1st Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Palin has charm?

GordonGuano said @ 1:03pm GMT on 1st Aug
It's expressed as a negative integer, but technically yes.

sanepride said @ 2:03pm GMT on 1st Aug
She did manage to charm McCain and his campaign staff into picking her for VP. But even if you hate her, there's no denying that she does have a natural charisma- something Mitt painfully lacks.

zenviper said @ 3:55pm GMT on 1st Aug
White Knight

sanepride said @ 4:38pm GMT on 1st Aug
An easy assumption, but at odds with the narrative of Steve Schmidt and other McCain staffers who facilitated Palin's selection (and later came to regret it).

Naruki said @ 2:24am GMT on 2nd Aug
Who really hates her, except McCain? Most of us loathe the idea that such an over-privileged and colossal fuck-up of a human being could have been saddled upon us for so long, but for her personally there is at best disgust and pity.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 2:34am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:2]
Who really hates Palin? I don't know but Alaska.

EPT said @ 2:35pm GMT on 1st Aug
Absolutely, yes. It's not charisma, but her good looks is what propelled her to political heights. Her good looks an 'all-american mom'-ism is what made chest-beating males rally to protect her - do you really think she would have had such hearty defenders of her insipid nonsense if she was a plain-faced hag?

DeadCarbonCopy said @ 5:02am GMT on 2nd Aug
Hey now. Haven't you ever played D&D? CHR covers both physical appearance and social abilities. Therefor it can easily be argued that she had a pretty decent CHR score.

sanepride said @ 5:09pm GMT on 1st Aug
No surprises here:
Romney tax reform proposal lowers taxes for millionaires, raises taxes for everyone else.
Welcome home Mitt!

sanepride said @ 7:58pm GMT on 1st Aug [Score:4 WTF]
Obamacare news:
Starting today women's health coverage, including free birth control, kicks in.

In celebration of this important stride, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-FL) invokes Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

willrogers said @ 12:35am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:5 Underrated]
I'm still trying to figure out how religious freedom includes the ability to prevent other people from getting medical treatment you're against.

Just because the health insurance company with which you have an individual/family policy or handles the policies for your coworkers and/employees covers contraceptives doesn't mean it's a violation of your religious freedom because you're against contraceptives. You are not being forced to use contraceptives and you're actually not directly purchasing them for anyone.

This is not the same as your insurer covering contraceptives for free and arguing that it's a violation of your religious freedom because your premiums are indirectly covering contraceptives isn't a valid argument. Under that logic, employers should be allowed to pay their employees in their own script that isn't available to purchase contraceptives at all, because paying employees in US currency causes you to indirectly pay for contraceptives as well if your employees choose to use their pay to buy contraceptives.

What's really going on here is that you have religious and political conservatives trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the country, which is a violation of everyone else's freedoms (privacy, religion, equal protection under the law, etc.), not a violation of these near-theocratic assholes.

bruceski said @ 12:51am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:2]
If I fire a guy, can I demand that their unemployment/food stamps not be used for pork?

hellboy said @ 1:30am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
"Near" theocratic?

It makes perfect sense when you take into account the fact that the only freedom they care about is the freedom of rich white Christian heterosexual men.

pleaides said @ 4:08am GMT on 2nd Aug
THIS

sanepride said @ 5:31am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Actually what's really going on here is these dumbasses trying to use the 'religious freedom' argument as a backdoor way to repeal Obamacare. The idea is to allow any employer or insurer to opt out for any reason, citing violation of their religious beliefs.

snowfox said @ 3:25am GMT on 2nd Aug
Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:36am GMT on 2nd Aug
No.

bruceski said @ 8:46am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Funny]
Sorry what was that? I was busy beating my wife.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:09am GMT on 2nd Aug
Mu.

Omegaphobic said @ 10:25am GMT on 2nd Aug [Score:1 Good]
Kwatz!

bbqkink said @ 6:27pm GMT on 2nd Aug
'You're going to have to take my word for it': Mitt Romney, tax returns, and a decade of evasion

Old habits die hard.

But after the Globe then sent Romney specific questions about his Utah residency, his campaign declined to respond because "he values his privacy and his wife's privacy." When reporters asked for the forms with financial information redacted and residency information visible, a spokesman told the Boston Globe: "You're going to have to take my word for it."

Sound familiar?

He lived in his sons basement...sure he did.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/01/13077163-youre-going-to-have-to-take-my-word-for-it-mitt-romney-tax-returns-and-a-decade-of-evasion?lite

bbqkink said @ 6:41pm GMT on 2nd Aug

Who is fighting for middle class tax cuts?
President Obama vs. Mitt Romney

Enter your Annual Income to see the clear choice between President Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s tax plans.

The Typical American Family with Children

Under President Obama saved $3,600 over the last 4 years
Under the President’s plan will continue to save $2,200 next year
Under Romney would pay over $2,000 more

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator

bbqkink said @ 7:37pm GMT on 4th Aug
at the "Under God: Indivisible" rally, held last week in Arlington, Texas, in conjunction with Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" gathering. The rally, one of the largest religious right gatherings of the year, drew a reported 6,000 enthusiastic conservative attendees.

As part of the event, the crowd heard from disgraced former Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed, who called the 2012 election the most important since the Civil War, and said God will have "mercy" on Americans on Election Day, but only if we beg God to forgive us "for what we have allowed to happen to this country."