Liberal/Conservative Divide Only Grows Uglier

RickAckerman's picture


It would be easy for me to dismiss Obama supporters as mentally defective but for one inconvenient fact: my mother, sharp as a tack at 92, is voting for him. And so is my sister, a San Francisco attorney who is no slouch in the brains department.  I’m not sure where my brother, a municipal employee, stands, but neither am I eager to find out. There is no bridging the political gap between us, and so we simply avoid discussing politics.  The same goes for old friends, although newer ones are another matter.  One of them walked out on our dinner together in a huff when an innocuous remark I’d made about Abe Lincoln evidently bruised his self-righteously liberal, morally perfect heart . Good riddance. It is far better friends than he that I am worried about. Will they draw the line when I let slip my support for the right to bear arms, even concealed?  A few of my wife’s closest friends are unmitigated liberals, and it’s unclear how much longer we’ll be able to tiptoe around the political rough edges when we get together socially.



The truce with my siblings and mother has held, but not without strain. When the latter referred to the eminently decent Mitt Romney as “a jerk,” I returned fire with an over-the-top fusillade of anti-Obama invective. That was a month ago, and we haven’t talked about the election since.  Nor do I plan to rub it in after Romney wins on Tuesday — an outcome I believe is inevitable because the nation has been wallowing for nearly five years in an officially undeclared, if not to say brazenly-lied-about, state of recession. Romney voters will have to stifle the hubris, though, since there is no way he will be able to reverse the country’s inexorable slide into economic darkness. To be fair, I should state that Obama is no more culpable for the abysmal state of the economy than Bill Clinton was praiseworthy for its resurgence during his presidency. He got lucky, is all, while Obama inherited a disaster two generations in the making. Economic cycles are far bigger than the presidency, and this one is going to take its ruinous course no matter who is in the White House.


Dating Game’s Top ‘No-No’


In the meantime, the political gap between liberals and conservatives can only continue to widen. And to grow uglier. This unfortunate trend was underscored by a recent Wall Street Journal story that focused on dating services. It seems the matchmaking business has declined in recent years because clients seeking mates are increasingly putting political compatibility at the top of their lists. “In this neck-and-neck, ideologically fraught election season, politically active singles won’t cross party lines,” the Journal noted. “The result is a dating desert populated by reds and blues who refuse to make purple.” So much for romance these days. Time was when smoking, drinking, religion, education level and physical attractiveness were the main concerns of men and women looking for love; now, apparently, a date-seeker’s political views trumps them all.


Until a crisis equal to the Great Depression arrives, liberals and conservatives are unlikely to bury the hatchet.  For voters on either side of the divide, the stakes in this election will not seem to have been exaggerated; for they involve nothing less than a fight for the nation’s economic well-being – nay, for its very soul. Over the next four years, and probably long thereafter, moral and financial jeopardy will confront each of us in ways that seem likely to widen political divisions. Putting aside the wild card of Iran, one of the most difficult issues we face will entail putting public employees’ pension and health care benefits on a sound financial basis. The unions will claim, correctly, that there is no legal precedent for denying workers benefits that were promised them when they were hired. Their employers will claim, also correctly, that the money simply isn’t there. But anyone who thinks the Federal Government will be able to “solve” this problem simply by printing money is in for a rude awakening.


The financial liability is in fact so large that attempting to monetize it would be tantamount to hyperinflating.  If, say, the Government were to offer lump-sum settlements averaging $150,000, the money could conceivably be worthless on delivery, since the actual disbursement of digital cash would be taken as a sign by the rest of us that Uncle Sam was on the hook for everyone’s financial needs. If the Government were instead to assume responsibility for years of scheduled payments in “real” dollars, taxpayers would eventually riot in the streets.  No matter how you work the numbers, there is no easy way out, at least not using monetary shenanigans.  The very clear implication is that the “solution” will come in the form of a dramatically lowered standard of living for most Americans.


Pensions Too Big to Bail Out


What is the dollar amount of the unfunded liability?  Many hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to some published estimates. Consider that a bankrupt Flint, Michigan, under the direction of a conservator, has cut its budget to the bone to effect annual savings of around $10 million. But the long-term structural shortfall imposed by Flint’s retirement promises is on the order of $600 million dollars over the next 25 years. Of course, Detroit’s long-term problems are orders of magnitude larger, and New York City’s vastly larger still — too big, in the aggregate, for even the U.S. Government to fix. Or rather, pretend to fix, since that’s all that the would-be fixers have been doing all along. Yes, the bailout has been a fraud – a con-game made easier by the fact that most of the bailout “money” has gone to sustain the illusion that the assets of our biggest banks net out to a positive number. But there can be no such shell game when it comes time to send out pension and healthcare checks after the coffers of states and cities have gone empty. Paying for the lives of retired workers will require coughing up real dollars each and every month, not virtual ones such as are posted as “reserves” by the banks.  And that’s why it will be impossible for the Federal Government to pretend, as it has with the banks, that the bailout is other than a charade.


Under the circumstances, hostility can only grow between liberals and conservatives, haves and have-nots, public and private workers, taxpayers and recipients.  We wish Mr. Romney luck, but he’ll have his hands full merely trying to keep blood from running in the streets, never mind returning America to prosperity.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
geekgrrl's picture

I'm not sure how there can be a liberal/conservative divide when liberals aren't liberal and conservatives aren't conservative.

I really doubt anyone here even agrees on the definition of liberal or conservative, so if we can't even agree on what words mean, what's the point?

We are talking past one another, and if we can't agree on a common language where things mean the same thing to everyone, then we're fucked.

fromthedeepersouth's picture

Rick, I come from a family of 9 kids.  Four are liberal, four are conservative and one is apolitical.  How is it that 9 kids from the same family can be so politically divided?  I've come to the conclusion that there's a genetic basis to it and there is recent scientific evidence to support this assumption.  As I've stepped back and viewed the so-called divide logically, i've come to the conclusion that its based on preconceived biases, and not because one side is necessarily right.  Sadly, too many people like you become so entrenched in your own perspective that you've closed your mind to the possibility that the other side has a point.  In my own case, i've come to realize that the other side DOES have a point, and that my previous conceived biases are just that, preconceived biases.  People who hold such extreme biases such as yourself are the biggest problem with our country.  Having a closed mind to learning new things others have to offer is keeping us from finding the right solutions to problems. 

geekgrrl's picture

Nice post, and thanks for adding your personal anecdote. I tend to agree based on the scientific evidence. Genetics and hormones have a huge effect on behavior. We like to think we are in control of how we feel and think, but the evidence seems to suggest differently.

arby63's picture

This is all I can think of anymore:


"Kotkin told the paper, adding that in his estimation, the state is run for the benefit of the very rich, the very poor, and public employees."

This is WHY Obama may very well win. Perhaps, everything will change forever after this election. I am with most of you who believe that both candidates are the same; however, I always try and hold out home that a Romney win "could" change the direction of our incessant spending.

I just don't know anymore. I know this: Our days are numbered (at least in terms of our social conditioning as to what is "normal") if we continue in the same direction for much longer.

Nehweh Gahnin's picture

Ackerman, you should stick to the econ stuff, with which you can at least sound somewhat informed.

As to the social and political stuff, you are channeling J. Edgar Hoover.  You would be far better off (as apparently your mother, sister, brother and wife all recognize) if you would just shut up.

denny69's picture

Kind of amazing really when you think about it since there's no significant difference between them at this point anyway - both groups want other people's money.

cdskiller's picture

Gentlemen, giving Ackerman's insulting nonsense space on the site is bottom-feeding by ZH. It does not provoke intelligent conversation because it is not intelligent. It is just provocative. It is impossible for a truly intelligent, insightful person to describe Romney as "emminently decent". That would require a total lack of understanding of the word decent or a total denial of the value of applying decency to one's political views or values. Is hypocrisy "emminently decent"? Is ruthlessness? Is a total disregard for the truth emminently decent? In what way is Romney, or Obama, for that matter, emminently decent? Both are criminals, without a single value they are willing to risk their political fortunes fighting for. Is decency measured by how well your tie consistently matches your suit or how perfectly cut your hair is? An emminently decent man would throw torturers in jail and insist on accountability for white collar crimes. That is not a liberal value, it is a human one, one that should be fought for by all decent people.

orangegeek's picture

Liberalism, Conservatism - who cares.


Here's an ideology:  "stop-with-the-big-government-shit-ism".  Or here's another, "stop-mortgaging-our-fucking-future-with-pork-barrel-government-pet-projects-ism".

Destrier's picture

Most of you are too young to remember 1980.  Jimmy Carter was favored to win re-election for the following reasons:

1.  Incumbency. He could pass out government largesse to buy voting support in the "swing states'.

2. He had an effective campaign team, and had proven in 1976 to be a good campaigner.

3.  He was "likable".

4.  He was "intelligent".

5.  He had faced Republican obstructionism to his economic plan.

6.  The poor economic performance was just "bad luck".

patb's picture

"eminently decent Mitt Romney as “a jerk,"


there is very little eminently decent about Mitt Romney except for his ability to cheat on taxes.


a $100 Million dollar 401K?  That's a ROI better then Southwest Airline stock, Apple stock, Microsoft, etc...


Seriously,  if Romney was decent, he'd release 7 years of tax returns.  


Romney made his money by raiding the pensions of working people, stealing the tips of minimum wage workers and by robbing people blind.  He's Ken Lay with better hair. He's Jon Corzine without options trading, and he's Gordon Gekko without the class.


maximin thrax's picture

OK, but don't foist another 4 years of Dr.Zero upon us. Please vote 3rd party or stay home Tuesday.

Dungeness's picture

And I really like this one:

How can you vote for someone that does not believe in Jesus?

HermesHiccups's picture

Rick's right on one point it really does not matter who wins the macro forces are going wipe out the current system at some point. Maybe Mitt keeps the charade going a few months/years longer. I just started reading the comment section of ZH and it really depresses me. When the end of this 50+ year financial abortion finally hits the reality of the general public arguments about womens rights and majic underwear are going to seem pretty small. My main concern is what direction do we go when everyone realizes how fucked up things are. If we are going to spend most of our energy taking sides about who is responsible for the train wreck the future is going piss all you guys off even more.

unwashedmass's picture

no, i definitely think it is way, way smarter to put my trust in some guy with maybe two years of community and a year at some Jerry Falwell seminary. Way smarter.....just like the old days. Oh, wait....wasnt it in the old days when the only guy in the village who had any education was the priest? Oh yeah.....geez now some of the peasants and serfs, and even, gasp! women may have more education than the local padre. 

but hey, he's the right guy to follow. 

gimme a break. you want to know why we are going down? the kind of reasoning you show.....jesus we are in trouble. 

WAMO556's picture

Oh yeah, saved round. None of the soldiers that I have run across, ever invoked a educational institute of higher learning when their ass were getting shot at.

Never heard "Please Harvard save me".

I did hear, "God save me"

Or invoking a curse - "Harvard damn you" doesn't work does it?

How about "God damn you" does that work?

The belief that education in the works of man will free you is absurd.

WAMO556's picture

So... Education takes the place of faith?? I missed that one, can you show me where being educated brings salvation, because all of the college Girls Gone Wild should then be saints. Right?

MickV's picture

One should not be thinking about the D/R divide, as both sides are deluded into believing that either side represents them or any adherance to the US Constitution. I will say that the Left is far more anti Constitution than the right, and thus more "anti-American" in theory. Asa matter of fact there is no "right to vote" (see 88 US 162), that right is only given by the state legislatures. Also as a matter of fact, the founders did not want everyone to vote, as they realized that 70% of the population is plain stupid. Thus we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Venezuela is a Democracy. We should all be independents who vote with the Constitution as our guide, not some slimey Lawyer/Politician.

As of now the Constitution does not exist, since it has been Usurped by the Presidency of B.H.Obama, an ineligible non natural born Citizen, born British of a British subject Kenyan father whom was not a US Citizen when B.H.O. 2 was born. We are not the US under the rule of law of a Suprema Lex Constitution, but some other form of government under the rule of corrupt men.

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167

The founders assured allegiance and attachment to country in the Commander In Chief by requiring a natural born Citizen as the chief magistrate (See Federalist #68-- prevent an "improper ascendant" ("improper ancestor") to ensure that the chief magistarte is a "creature of their own" (natural born Citizen--- born of US Citizens on the soil).

Can there be any doubt that Obama lacks allegiance and attachment to America? Look at Benghazi! Look at John Corzine, his bundler, walking free. Look at his "standing with the Muslims".

The Republic can only be restored by the realization of the Usurpation-- then Obama's presidency can be voided, and all orders and appointments voided. Obama was put in place in order to void US Citizen sovereignty. He is the NWO Banker's man. It will probably take the blood of tyrants and patriots to restore the Republic.

Old Poor Richard's picture

The emminently prick-headed Mitt Romney blew his entire load destroying the grassroots of the Republican party, destroying Ron Paul personally.  He's got no juice left to beat Obama.  All Obama has to do is sit back and let Mitt the cartoonish supervillian self-destruct in the eyes of the public.

It was obvious even before the Republican national convention that the establishment which runs both the Republican and Democratic parties had long before decided to throw the election to their puppet Obama, and the only thing standing in the way was Ron Paul.  Mitt destroyed Ron using his own momentum, threw the election by throwing out the grassroots from the party.

The faux debate about tax rates is a show for angry high-middle income people to hate Obama more and to hate their brethren in the low-middle income class.  People making $500K are jealous and angry at people making $100K because they pay a couple percentage points more in taxes.  People making $100K are angry that their coveted tax breaks are jeopardized to shave off a few percent for those making $500K and $1M+, causing them to be angry at Romney.  The Republican base has just been split in half by the establishment who crafted this devious plot by simply having their Democratic party tool suggest keeping breaks only for those making under $250K and their Republican party tool suggest eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction and other "loopholes" exploited by the middle class, while increasing real income-hiding loopholes for the upper crust.

What if I'm wrong?  What if this isn't a conspiracy, what if Democrats really are so insane as to want to soak people making over $250K income and Republicans really want to soak people making under $250K?  That's crazier than the idea of a conspiracy in my book.   This country is doomed no matter what. 

If a Ron Paul write-in would be tabulated in my state, I'd write him in.  Since he did not register electors in my state, Dr. Paul's votes won't be tabulated, therefore I'm voting Libertarian. 

A Libertarian president is our only hope.  Maybe 2016, if we aren't living under a dictatorship by then.


Adahy's picture

Stop hitting yourself.

bk1037's picture

Romney has not held or ever held a lead in the projected results in the Electoral college, and we have two days left. It will be close in the national vote as all expect, but Romney supporters continue to dream if they feel they should have confidence in what's about to happen. Mitt has blown off too many big states in the Dem column without even a meaningful effort to try to sway the outcome in those states. And this is not 2004 where allegations of voting machine rigging in Ohio can't be checked out right away, and too many people know now how the polling has been going for some weeks with a consistent 2-3% Obama margin there. Any significant deviation from this projected outcome is going to be viewed with some scepticism, your buddy Romney needs to win clearly and unmistakably and that does not appear to be in the cards. I am hopeful all the disputes are over by Christmas, including Supreme Court and other likely legal challenges.

I had to laugh with Romney trying to sell a bipartisan message on the campaign trail and that folks should be concerned about reelecting Obama because of the fiscal cliff and national debt negotiations. Two can play games in obstuctionism, not just the GOP. Reid has already signalled that some of potential Pres. Romney's controversial agenda will get a frosty reception with Dem senators, and of course that includes filibusters in the other direction. Romney is not going to be able to cure dysfunction if he gets elected, and I am becoming of the belief that unless partisanship eases in Main Street America, nothing is truly going to change in Washington DC. I see signs of hardened ideology where I live and I am sure that is true in all non-battleground states. This is red nation and blue nation now, not the United States. I find that very sad as I remember when we were united (or it at least felt that way that things were not totally hyperpartisan). Thank the internet, cable news and conservative talk radio for this development. If my guy doesnt win on Tuesday night, I can live with the outcome though I won't agree with what the nation decided. I'll wager at least 90-95% of Americans disagree with that, where the thought of the other guy becoming president it totally repugnant and distasteful. There are so few independents any more.


Leraconteur's picture

Of course, Detroit’s long-term problems are orders of magnitude larger, and New York City’s vastly larger still — too big, in the aggregate, for even the U.S. Government to fix.


The pension deficit is approximately 80 billion per year, forever. This is a huge sum of  money but in the current context, on an annual basis, it can fit within the monetisation games that are ongoing.

TPTB will, once again, look at the monthly payment, promise everyone that they will get what 'is theirs' and the deficit/debt will simply increase by the amount ladled onto the topof the existing heap.

OASDI -Hi and OASDI-EE will meet the same fate. All systems seek preservation and survival. This system will promise everyone everything 'they are owed and paid in to the program' and monetise it all.

10mm's picture

All i know is the living standards will indeed get lower and once this fuckin charade of an election is over it's on.Austerity on oneside,cont debasement of currency on the other.

unwashedmass's picture

Rick, you completely overlook the assault against women by the Republicans. You seem to have no clue that Romney and his friends have almost completely alienated 1/2 of the population with all the chatter over exactly who should make decisions on their healthcare. These larger macroeconomic issues pale in comparision to the idea that women's choices regarding their own bodies will be taken away completely should Romney and his supporters take over. 

Now you will say that there is no war on women and this sort of thing will not happen --- consider if this were you, would you take a chance that it won't? Would you take a chance that these far right wing neanderthals who apparently missed all their high school science classes will be put in any position of authority to enact laws that put you at risk? 

If Romney loses, I'd lay the fault directly that feet of the far right fundamentalist wing. Yes, women are deeply concerned about the economy....but reproductive healthcare is an economic decision for a family --- one they can CONTROL now. They can't control JP Morgan and its rampaging thru the markets. They can't control Goldman Sachs and the regulators who GS has bought and paid for. They can control how many kids they They can control whether they get the right kind of healthcare that helps them live longer.  

And that, something they can control in this complete chaos, is not something they are going to take a chance on. Not women, they are too smart for that. 

sadmamapatriot's picture

Yeah, we women always vote with our vaginas. Wait...what?

You want to know why these pyramid schemes are all failing? Because we no longer are growing the population base to support it.

But let's get back to this "war on women". How about I point out how you are the sexist for thinking women think of issues no greater than their genitalia? And you are a bigot for hating "far right fundamentalists" because they might actually have principles and morals, whether they always follow through on them or not. I hate Romney because he is a big freaking fake who has no idea what he really even believes in. And his magic underwear cult has nothing to do with fundamental Christianity besides stealing the names for their little charade.

Nehweh Gahnin's picture

Your fundamental christians are just as awful for women -- if not far more -- than Romney and his mormonism.  Right on par with the Salafis and Wahabbists.  They're not "principles."  They're cult control mechanisms.  Keep that BS.

WAMO556's picture

Was that your lady parts???

Hubbs's picture

Oh, Romney knows what he believes in. Romney believes in one thing: power. Of course he flip flops. He wants to get elected.  Of course he has squirrled away tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars through tax dodges. He's a politician! Politicians need to get re relected and by doing so, grow fat off the facsist regime.

unwashedmass's picture

no one is saying women vote with their vaginas. not at all. what I am saying is that this is an issue that comes right into a person's HOME and twists their nipples. its not a macro event in the financial markets --- its a hey right in your own bedroom and fucks with your own life. And possibly fucks you royally not over the next year but THIS WEEK.  It is the ultimate, complete invasion of privacy. 

And as far as the fundamentalists having principals -- fine, who cares? That they expect me and all of mine to live by their principals and morales == NO THANKS. What happened to freedom of religion? which includes the freedom to have no religion? 

And if you think there isn't a war on women, you are delusional. Denying it so loudly while promoting policies that will be utterly devastating to women shows exactly what the republicans think of women.  

Again, women aren't that dumb. 


sadmamapatriot's picture

You are that dumb.

For Christ's sake, take the red pill already. Anyone, I mean anyone, that votes this election based on divisive social issues when the Global Debt Bubble is about to pop is a freaking moron that deserves to be eaten in the zombie apocalypse. Romney can't/won't fix it but he might buy us a little time to prepare. Obama is flooring the gas pedal.

But no, let's talk abortion! Abortion! Hell, throw in a little gay marriage! Gay marriage! That'll save save you, sheeple.

Cathartes Aura's picture

gee, that's a unique thought I've not read elsewhere,

let's talk abortion! Abortion! Hell, throw in a little gay marriage! Gay marriage!

what seems to fly right over your voting head is the truth that voting doesn't do anything to alter what's already in motion, and will continue to advance, behind the "scenes" - things like NDAA, etc.

no figurehead has a say in these matters, and they never have/will.  it's systemic. 

it's a long-term agenda.


Escapeclaws's picture

Abortion: babies in the womb deciding to die. That's pro-choice. The fact that their mothers grant them this awful choice shows that these mothers respect their baby's freedom. How compassionate!

Cathartes Aura's picture

make the choice to be a female next time 'round, live out whatever fantasies/karma you're storing up now. . .

it's all a story dude, you're the narrator.

WAMO556's picture

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. Why should women be allowed to vote? Are women more pragmatic or more susceptible to vanity. An interesting question. Would the USA be better off with MORE voters or less?

sadmamapatriot's picture

Ann Barnhardt had an interesting essay on this very point. I don't think a household vote is actually unreasonable.

Cathartes Aura's picture

ahhh, yes, she of the pink weaponry, and Catholic "Koran burning" stance. . . seek her advice. . .

Am I surprised? Not really. Islam is all a con, has only ever been a con, and only ever will be a con. When faced with ONE LITTLE GIRL who marches under the War Standard of Jesus Christ, an entire political cult of 1.2 billion people crumples and folds like a cheap suit. But I'm not done yet. In fact, I'm just getting warmed up. My goal is total and complete victory, as in the complete extermination of the political cult of islam from the face of the earth. This world isn't big enough for both of us. 1400 years is 1400 years too long. Satan and some child-raping, goat-humping mental defective started it, and BY GOD I'm gonna fight to finish it, one way or another, in this life or the next.

2016, go team!

WAMO556's picture

I think that I remember a interesting statistic that showed 47% of the women having babies nowadays are unwed.


But to solve your problem, let's put abortion clinics in every school, nieghborhood and next to every church, that way those scary right wing fundamentalists will know who is in charge. Oh yeah, forgot something, let's register each an every kid (boy and girl) for any and all pornographic modes of visual transmission, bring in registered sex offenders to teach our children.


If you moral compass is not going ape shit right about now, then maybe YOU are one of those right wing Christian fundamentalists. They don't scare me, because I know where they are coming from. Those that scare me are the atheists - what exactly do these people base their morals and values on....a lodestone of situational values and morals that constantly moves where humans have the equivalency to a earth worm or a plant. Scary people they are because you have no value to them other then what fits their the moment. Pol pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin. You starting to see the light yet??

Helvetico's picture

If religion made people moral, American prisons would be wonderful places to live: more than 99% of inmates believe in a superior being, adhering to one flavor of monotheism or another. Contrarily, the National Institute of Health, where roughly half of the scientists are atheists (most smart people are), would be a den of iniquity rampant with all manner of sinful behavior. As it happens, NIH scientists are among society's most useful contributors, helping mankind daily with their research.

Just because you need a magic, bearded man in the sky and the threat of eternal damnation to hold your savagery in check doesn't mean everybody else does. 

maximin thrax's picture

If religion made people moral, American prisons would be wonderful places to live: more than 99% of inmates believe in a superior being, adhering to one flavor of monotheism or another

Tricky little sentence, that. Believing in a higher power and being religious are separate things. I'm sure 99% of prisoners believed in the existence of laws and prisons before commiting their crimes. But the simple acknowledgement of a criminal justice system didn't create within them the necessary mindset to avoid imprisonment. 

WAMO556's picture

...and YOU would put your trust in a bunch of atheist scientists who happen to work for a government institution?!? Would any of them happen to have a surname of MENGALA? Let's call you patient number ONE and see where you end up... The oven or the ditch.

Bedonkedonk's picture

"They can control how many kids they"


Always have been able to. I don't think it has ever really been a big secret how babies are made.

Element's picture

As you rightly point out, it is religious fundamentalist based, and that is the whole problem with Romney, everything he wants to do and will do, if elected, will be coloured by his flake fundie mentality, he is a more sophisticated type of Taliban in a nice western suit and a clean shaven face, but he is a nutter through and through.  Obama is a total catastrophe, but Romney will be far worse than 9-11 man, Bush jr.

god help you all now, both these guys are a poison pill

Cathartes Aura's picture

upvoted for a great descriptive of the Romney - though I personally believe Romney is the fake plastic figurehead as per usual, and the teammate Paul Ryan is where I'd pay attention. . . a narrowing of minds is happening before our eyes. . .

Shizzmoney's picture

Time was when smoking, drinking, religion, education level and physical attractiveness were the main concerns of men and women looking for love; now, apparently, a date-seeker’s political views trumps them all.

Um, no.  Money trumps all of these.

SanOvaBeach's picture

More polarization than the Vietnam War.  But fuck, I loved killing women and children to stop the commies!

The Malamute Kid's picture

You're an idiot. Bet you did'nt even go to Viet Nam.  I did. I was in Nam.

SanOvaBeach's picture

My CO was Calley you stupid fuck'in ass.

patb's picture

good old calley, they sure as shit needed him at Fire Base Maryann.  He'd have greased everyone of those

zipperheads at the ARVN base.  



dinastar2's picture

Obama's second term is the agony and quick death spiral of the US Dollar .Once the US Dollar is thrown to the ditch by the foreigners who are still willing to put their money into your US Govt T bonds a t 3% per year, you dear amercian ( I realy mean dear americans, since I like your music, your sports, your movies, etc..) you are toasted..

Obam's second term will bring Quantitative easing 4th-5th-6th and Nth....You do not care ? Well China Russia, Asian nations, oil rich arab kingdoms who are the ones funding your governement ( not yoy -you got it but them the foreigners ) wil, close the spigot because they are fed up of losing 1 to 4 % per year on their money.And why do lthey lose thst money ?because the US CPI is at 4% ( really it is above 5%) and with 3% interest rate /year we lose money.

Since you can not raise the interest rate in T bonds yield bankrupt your feeble recovery ) you are locked in a death trap: Either keep on printing phony money and end up in high inflation ( foreigners will have already lef the US Govt T bonds ) or jack up the interest rates ( very severe purge of bad banks, no more free money for the SP , etc..) for two years, keep a very strong US dollar so youreceive more foreign money and get back on your feet with a leaner finacial sector and renewed foreign investment.

Since Oama will never change its Keynesian policy you will soon see Dollar get trapped into a death spiral.

Actually it has already started since you can notice the RYJCX etc  are slowly raising their prices.Smart investors are thinking that Obama's is finished and are betting on a rise on  T bonds yileds and a vcitory of Romney . This is a  bitter medcine but it's the only one left to save your currency and save your economy.

GreatUncle's picture

Amusing ... I believe in the right to bear arms no problem with that. Yet I also believe people need enough to live on.

THe conservative angle is people can live on fresh air whilst the Liberals reckon if you have not got all the luxuries and trappings you actually live in poverty. The real issue is you need a truthful baseline value for existence and neither side is prepared to do that. Instead they make non desirable parts of the population live under this baseline.

Baseline cost per week 300 dollars to exist?

The only promises that should be made are to this baseline existence for all and "nothing extra" for any chosen group rich or poor.

Carry on bickering, one day the Liberals will desire guns and the Conservatives will demand more as they are pillaged.