Thursday, September 27, 2012

Peter Schiff Smacksdown Mitt Romney

This is big.

Peter Schiff has run as a Republican in a Connecticut primary and when he gets the chance, he will play nice with "small government" Republicans (including Rand Paul) but when he sees a major Republican pol stepping way out of line, he is not afraid to deservedly smack them down. A lesson for Rand.

(ht Mirand Sharma)


  1. His campaign is collapsing and I can't be happier. I hope he feels the need to cry himself to sleep every night, pitifully whining to his wife "why don't they like me? WAAAHAHHHAAAA!"

    Because you're a bad, egotistical man, who stands for nothing, and loves power.

    1. This is an article about Romney. I got confused by your string of adjectives which so aptly describes the idiot-in-chief, Barry Hussein, the very definition of feeble-minded (democrat puppet), elitist, egotistical, megalomaniacal arrogance, but what do I know--after all he did win a Nobel prize for his "potential."

  2. I wonder what Schiff would be saying if he was actually in office. But hey, people calling out politicians are always going to get a nod of approval from me.

  3. Further proof that on the issue of 'taxes' the Republicans are only less commie than the Democrats.

    Here in TX, the Republican governor and comptroller arm twisted Amazon into collecting a state sales tax. Yeah, go team 'R'! (eye roll)

    The Republicans in Congress could have made the Bush tax cuts permanent, end the federal withholding tax, end income tax on interest income, increase meaningful deductions for medical or education or anything else if they wanted.

  4. Usually Republicans can at least talk a good game of smaller government. Romney can't even do that. Wherever you look--his lame economic program, his warmongering neocon advisers, his phony manner as a politician, his sleazy and fascist tactics towards Ron Paul supporters--there is simply no case for Romney. I am certainly no Obama fan, but if forced to choose between him and Romney, Obama is the (slightly) better choice.

  5. Apparently you are hearing what you want to hear and not what was actually said in the 1st clip played. Somehow, you came to the conclusion that he said he's going to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the reduced rate for the middle class, when according to the clip played, he said no such thing. The rate for everyone would be reduced; however, the deductions and exemptions for the rich, in particular, would be limited in order not to reduce the revenue to the government. If Romney merely reduced the rate on everyone without limiting the deductions and exemptions, then the rich would, in effect, pay fewer taxes than now. If the tax rate on the rich is increased, like Obama wants to do, then the rich pay more, not the same -- it's a tax increase.

    1. Who is the one really hearing what they want to hear? Romney says he wants:

      1. No tax reduction for high income people.

      2. A tax reduction for middle income people.

      3. No reduction in revenue going to the government.

      So, if these three are correct, in order to not raise taxes on the rich, he would have to raise taxes on the poor. And we all know he isn't going to do that. Therefore, he must raise taxes on the rich if he wants to give a tax reduction to the middle class while not reducing revenue.

  6. If every voter withheld their votes until there were a candidate they agreed with 100%...there would be no voters.

    Why is it so hard for people to be an intellectual minority?

    Why do people need to excoriate people with whom they substantively disagree on 1 of every 1000 issues?

    I won't vote for Romney, not because he is a 'bad man' - I don't know the man! - but because he has chosen to be the public face of people who are wholly authoritarian.

    While I could look at his policies, I would be wrong to expect to 100% agree with them - or anyone else's policies.

    But why even examine Dr Romney's prescription for the country? He has chosen to represent autocrats without respect for individual dominion expressed as self-determination.

    In doing so he has tacitly admitted (whether he himself realizes it or not) that his prescriptions will not be implemented in favor of the prescriptions of the autocrats. I don't need to look any deeper than that.

    The fact that Mr. Obama is a creature of the same autocrats - but tailors himself to appeal to a different constituency of voters - also disqualifies him.

    The Republicans are the representatives of autocrats - who market to the (shrinking) middle class by offering to let them keep a little more of their own production than the Democrats - while implementing policies absolutely favoring the autocrats.

    The Democrats are the representatives of autocrats - who market to the (growing) underclass that simply want a cut of the stolen proceeds from others' work. This supports the autocrats by delivering them autocratic powers in return for fiscal patronage.

    Marx CLEARLY wrote in the manifesto that the Communists have no program of their own: "They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement."

    "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

    Thus, the Democrats just want the product of your labor, and will distribute significant portions of it to anyone who wants 'free stuff' as their natural allies.

    And the Republicans just want a slightly smaller percentage of your labor (at any given moment), and will distribute significant portions of it to anyone who will support them.

    As a platform they are both saying the same thing. They are saying they support, "Formation of the proletariat into a class ... conquest of political power by (means of) the proletariat."

    When you vote for the lesser evil, you are voting for evil.

    I would prefer to expend my energy expanding the list of choices.