Its a slippery slope backing up Mitt.

Santorum would love to be Romney's VP!!!!!!!

He reeks of a "butt kisser" and "I'm The Dude" type of guy ................

Ol' Frothy is defending capitalism by defending a low life like Mitt? If capitalism can't withstand criticism then perhaps the idea is too weak to stand alone. Capitalism and Communism unbridled and unrestrained are equally bad for the country that embraces them. The GOP defends capitalism like Moses brought down a third tablet from the mountain with Adam Smith quotes on it.

Well, that should be Adam Smith MISQUOTES. Having actually READ "Wealth of Nations", I can tell that if Smith were alive today he would NOT be a republican OR a libertarian - Smith among other things ADVOCATED for a welfare safety net, a LIVING wage, unionization, pro-labor legislation and OPPOSED legislation designed to benefit "property" - business.

"Read my lips. I will never run for Vice President."

Joke all you want guys...but Santorum and Romney is a somewhat strong ticket. Santorum will bring all of those right wing christians into the mix...the ones who don't like Romney being a Mormon.

It's not so much that those right wing christians would ever vote democrat and are therefor lost votes...it's more about getting them fired up to campaign for the republican ticket.

Obama is vulnerable...unless he timed it right and the economy starts to improve this year and saves his job...just like he timed it.

I hate politicians and am so disappointed that this is what Obama turned out to be...I'll still vote for him though although I do have to admit that I wouldn't be heartbroken if Romney won. Disappointed...but not heartbroken.

Yup, Spoken like a true VP.

And the "strong ticket team" fantasy league begins. And speaking of fantasy, PHIL COMMANDER, why vote at all with a feeling like that if you are so disappointed? I'm just wondering. I'm for Ron Paul.

Say it isn't so - Loot Medicare & Social Security? Really? There is nothing there to loot.

Course there is, just wait till you are there and you will not call it "nothing"

So, if I understand Santorum, no business is above reproach because that in effect would be an attack on capitalism and our entire American way of life...

[Cue the Animal House score for Otter's passionate defense of Delta before the Greek tribunal]

Seems to me part of our American way of life includes some restraints on predatory capitalism. We do have antitrust laws, after all, and I seem to remember even the Republicans supporting those.

I certainly see myself as a capitalist. Perhaps not to the kneejerk rhetorical levels of a Larry Kudlow, but still a capitalist. I would never say a company's practices are in the clear just because its practices were aimed at business profits. In effect, that's what Santorum is babbling here.

Actually a lot of these problems go back to the 1980s and the Reagan tax revolution. Basically it's been a 30-year experiment in low tax rates. The result is easy money without big tax implications sloshing around from one bubble to the next, an incentive not to start businesses because you don't need the tax writeoffs anymore, and thus the birth of cowboy capitalism. You know, the kind of capitalism in which you don't need to actually produce anything to make profits. You can simply out-trade, out-deal, out-parasite everyone else and still get to the top.

Back in the day before Reagan, the basic social contract with regard to making new wealth was you pretty much had to start a business to get there, unless you had a rich 90-year-old uncle or something like that. Tax rates were too high to build wealth in anything other than slow, conservative ways - i.e., business ownership and growth. Now, it's a free-for-all. Apparently Santorum doesn't see things that way, though. Mostly, I'd guess, because he never thinks about this stuff in any sort of reflective manner, and instead just goes with the Kudlow flow. "Capitalism good. Successful capitalism better. Most successful capitalism best." Simply doesn't matter whether or not the profits come from actually producing anything. That's irrelevant. Nowhere on a 10Q are you dinged for parasitic profits. Profits are profits. For people like Santorum and Romney, that's become the Bain of this country's existence.

Paul M

Seems to me part of our American way of life includes some restraints on predatory capitalism. We do have antitrust laws, after all, and I seem to remember even the Republicans supporting those.

That is one of the HUGE problems with Ron Paul.

He thinks the anti-Trust laws are bad for the economy.

From the book he wrote:

Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul

From page 13 of the pdf.

The trends in legislation in this century are clearly anti-free-market, starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act passed in 1890 to the strong federal control over trade with the Clayton Act of 1914.

Bain Capital's objective in taking over these companies was to make a profit for their investors, pure and simple. If the company succeeded, fine, and if the company failed, too bad.

Paul M,

Profits are profits. For people like Santorum and Romney, that's become the Bain of this country's existence.

Very well reasoned, well written post. I especially liked the above. Well done!

tweet-2832581,

See Ken-583017's Post #2 below to see what's missing in your argument.

Santorum realizes he's lost this thing and the best thing to keep his political career alive would be to get in on the Romney camp and hope for a position in Romney's administration. The only problem is Romney simply can't beat Obama.

Tweet

If the company succeeded, fine, and if the company failed, too bad.

The point is that if the company succeeded, Bain made money. If the company failed, Bain made money. Like the other LBO shops during the easy money days, they put up a little down payment, borrowed the rest and immediately took their money back as brokerage fees, management fees, dividends and stock buy-backs. From then on, anything they got was gravy. Don't confuse this with risk capitalism.

Why could they perpetuate this foolproof money making scheme?

Because bankers are stupid. Bank lending officers have always been drawn from the bottom of the academic and intellectual barrel. Don't agree, reread the economic history of the last half of the first decade of the 21st century.

bla bla, bla bla bla, bla is all hear coming form these dewshbags. It's time to take these two to the chopping block and see if they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Capitalism is fine. But not the 'socialized losses/privatized profits' version that current American corporations (including Romney's firm) practice. Romney has been running on the concept that his business success makes him a job creator. This is a lie. Mitt's business success has been built by laying off workers and eliminating jobs.

Mitt Romney is even less honest than the average politician. Even among his peers (those running for the GOP nomination), a group full of less-than-honest individuals, Mitt seems like a complete scumbag. At least Gingrich and Santorum don't really try to hide the fact that they are worthless human beings.

Tis a slippery slope to attack also. Good catch by Santorum though, you should not attack what you are running on.

What Gingrich is doing so by a very calculated effort. He must think he can overcome the negative stigma of attacking Romney to win AND the flip-flop attacks that will surely come when he runs against Obama.

Perry is not running this in a calculated manner, sort of like his "send troops back into Iraq" moment in the NH debates. It's not that he couldn't be a good president, he just needs to think national issues and positions through more before he goes live. He should withdraw, and if he wants to run again in 2016 or 2020.

Romney is misplaying his situation by comparing his Apple (Bane) to Obama's Orange (GM bailout). He too, is only looking at the temporary gain, that will cost him in the fall.

..............."Santorum is trailer park trash from the Tea-ReTards and their buddies the Kocheads". "This loser is evidence that Iowan voters lost their way".

Paul M in Wbridge ... you are a true carpenter when it comes to "hitting the nail square on the head"!!!!!

Dem in Texas

Santorum realizes he's lost this thing and the best thing to keep his political career alive would be to get in on the Romney camp and hope for a position in Romney's administration.

I don't think so. Santorum is actually operating on a business level of "this is the situation today, now what can I do today to maintain and improve the situation." This is actually the attitude that helped make McDonald's the top of the Fast Food industry.

The only problem is Romney simply can't beat Obama.

Wishful thinking. Nationally Romney is running within 3 points ahead to behind on Obama. Romney appears to have close to the numbers he needs in key states Obama won in 2008.

Obama's approval numbers are equal to Jimmy Carter's at this time in 1980. Reagan - who nobody thought could beat Jimmy was double digits behind. There is no Republican candidate who's average is double digits behind Obama.

Obama has to hope unemployment goes down enough OR unload the sewage he can find or create on whoever opposes him in the Fall.

Patriotic - How can you call yourself Patriotic when you are trashing your fellow citizens?

From what I understand, Bain capital created and saved far more jobs in the US than it eliminated. Companies like Bain look for poorly managed companies that are for sale for less than they think they are worth. Then they cut costs and decide what to do long-term. In some cases this means getting everything they can out and eventually closing the doors (or moving to a new location), in some cases this means restructuring and growing the company.

If the venture capital companies weren't out there, the companies they buy would just close their doors instead - then everyone would lose their jobs (not just the people at the companies that can't be profitable).

Hey Frothy...why not jump into a time machine and head back to whatever era you want. That way...you can peddle your fundamentalist/BOP BS while being burned at the stake.

Romney and the rest of BOP lackeys are more than willing to destroy the government as long as they get their cut. Obama has no spine...but at least he's stood up for once to the BOP and made an appointment of someone who should hold their bribers at bay.

So the party of the "free market" now eviscerates one of their own for practicing "free market" economics. Now the Pope's candidate comes to his defense. The party of " family values" now has a candidate advocating the legalization of all street drugs, gay marriage, and abortion being left up to the states. Candidates so scared they can't answer a question about contraception honestly during a televised debate. If this was a fiction book it would be unbelievable.

Romney/Santorum 2012.

Any attack on Romney is an attack on capitalism. (what a joke)

Any attack on Sanotrum is an attack on religion. (what a joke)

So, basically, if you vote against Romney/Santorum, your are voting against God and Country.

Iran has the same basic philosophy with Khamenei/Ahmedinejad. Lots of power mad despots make that argument, too.

The TRUTH is more like: Free market capitalism is good, but Romney would be an awful President, and freedom of religion is good, but Santorum would be a bad Vice President.

What we need is an open enterprise system not capitalism. Capitalism is crony corporate capitalism where only the corporate oligarchy owns wealth. Under the Republicans we will return to a time when only property owning persons (defined as corporations) will have the right to vote. The people will acquies because their choices will only be to work for low world scale wages or beg for food from the socially conservative churches.

Another person who actually has READ Adam Smith.

New American. Get your computer keyboard fixed, it's stuck.

"Money is like manure, it only works when it's spread around".

Ken

I couldn't agree with you more. Teddy Roosevelt stood against the exploitive excesses of capitalism and is still revered as one of our greatest presidents. No rational person is saying punish the rich, just level the playing field and incorporate sane regulation in our financial markets. I undestand that the Dodd-Frank bill is too complicated to be a real fix, it appears to be an actual drag on the economy and should be modified, or replaced. The bottom line here is Bain gutted companies and sent jobs overseas.

All praise to the capitalist crooks who created current Great Depression! Anybody who questions the right of banksters to screw everybody and get away with it is un-American and against capitalism! All hail the almighty profit, regardless of how many lives were ruined to get it... that's the American way!

There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There is everything wrong with swooping in on a troubled company, liquidating it, laying off the entire workforce, and profiting from it.

Two different things, Nutjob Santorum.

Skeeter,

New American. Get your computer keyboard fixed, it's stuck.

Or his brain. . . .

What we have couldn't be further than capitalism. We have corporate socialism. Where the government is there to serve the corporations. And thank the SCOTUS for allowing corporations to be able to buy elections now.

There is everything wrong with swooping in on a troubled company, liquidating it, laying off the entire workforce, and profiting from it.

Of all the companies Bane invested in, there are very few that failed. In this example in the first year of profitabilty Bane did take an unusually large profit off of the company profit.

First, they owned the company, it is their choice,

Second, the assumption is that it was for greed. Maybe, but what we are not provided with to make that judgement is what Bane was doing with the money. Did they take that money because they saw another opportunity to invest in that required that kind of money?

Did they take it to balance out other losses that year? No one is saying and before screaming "greedy", How about if we do the homework?

Excellent post, Ken.

At Bain Capital, Mitt Romeny robbed loyal employees of their EARNED pensions, and gave the stolen proceeds to his rich pals.

As President of the United States, he would do the same to every working man and woman in America by robbing Social Security and distributing the proceeds to his rich pals.

Oh - come on commonsense do you really believe all of this information you are spewing out! Let's have some documentation for all of your baloney . . . and your speculation about what anyone would do as president of the U.S.? We can only speculate on President Obama and the havock he has hoisted upon all of us in the U.S.

VERY TRUE dls: Samtorum and Romney attack citizens.

Here is Alan Grayson's take on their position which cuts through the RNC spin/talking points and clarifies what these candidates believe; enlightening:

"Rick Santorum tried to ban weather forecasts. Actually, not all weather forecasts. Just government weather forecasts.

I realize that you could possibly be a little skeptical about that, so here is the bill, at the official Senate website. Sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the National Weather Services [sic] Duties Act of 2005, S. 786, 109^th Cong., 1^st Sess.

By the way, Santorum introduced this bill a few months after four different hurricanes hit Central Florida, where I live. In one of those hurricanes, a big chunk of my roof collapsed, right into the living room. So weather forecasts are sort of important in my community. A matter of life and death, you might say.

Now you must be thinking, "Wow, that guy Santorum is a REAL conservative." Santorum recognizes that government weather forecasts are meteorological socialism; they are a serious infringement on your constitutional right not to know whether it will rain tomorrow. Santorum sees that weather forecasts are a government takeover of the skies. In fact, Santorum is such an astute and profound conservative thinker that he probably realizes that traffic lights are a government takeover of the roads.

But this note is not about traffic lights. It’s about Rick Santorum and government weather forecasts. And why Rick Santorum tried to ban them.

Here’s why. It’s because AccuWeather is a commercial weather forecasting company, and AccuWeather employees gave Santorum more than $5,000 in campaign contributions. Then he introduced the bill. Which subsequently and consequently led to Santorum being named as one of Congress’s “most corrupt politicians.” Which is saying a lot.

I can picture the conversation:

AccuWeather lobbyist: “Here is $5000 in bundled contributions from AccuWeather. Now introduce a bill to ban government weather forecasts.”

Santorum: “OK. Sure. Why not? Whatever. I love this cheesecake.”

And that is what I’ve seen over and over again. This thing called “conservative ideology” has degenerated to the point where it exists simply to spew out rationalizations for something else entirely: whatever the corporate lobbyists want."

In November do not forget that Romney, Samtorum and their ilk believe corporations are people, and they will fight for and represent corporations, NOT citizens.

America does NOT need any of that!

The reason Walmart is so big is because they continually find ways to cut the price lower than anyone else. Because they deliver products for a lower price, consumers return continuosly.

On the one hand we love them because they expand our ability to purchase more for our money, but we hate them because they won't pay what we want to sell those products to them for, but to have a wage, you will cut your demand or you will go hungry.

That is capitalism. You can have as high a wage as you want, provided your product costs the least on the market. Where we get in trouble is that our wages and expense costs us more than the lowest cost competitor on the market.

In the Jungle, to capture a Monkey, they hollow out a gourd with a hole just big enough for the Monkey to put his hand in the gourd and put a monkey's favorite berry in it. The hole is small enough that the monkey cannot get it's hand out with a closed fist full of berries. The monkey will put his hand in and grab the berries and refuse to let go of the berries even though the trappers are bagging the monkey.

Because we are too proud to compete, we lose, even though we are plenty happy to pay less in the stores.

DB Akron. While I agree with most of your post, as a small business owner, I have known for years how the living, breathing giant of Wally ruins small business. There is no way that small business can COMPETE with the monster. We are not too proud, we are steamrolled.

On the looks of it, good business plan. In reality, we're toast. It is impossible.

You are right though. The citizens must learn to spread the money around town, at places that know your name and help keep the area alive.

I think what's needed is to change laws and trade treaties to help bring manufacturing back to the US.

I'd like to see something similar to this: if a company wants to sell goods here in the US, that's great - but if a certain % of the manufacturing costs are not incurred in the US then they pay a tariff.

Their are solutions out there, but our elected leaders either don't seem to be interested in solving this issue. (that goes for both parties) There are some good politicians in the rank and file of both parties, but the leadership seems much more concerned with short-term political gain than governing for the long-term.

Skeeter,

I agree about Wally World. I live near a small town and I was one of the few that was against the new WalMart store. It's here now and they employ a lot of people (think mostly at minimum wage jobs), but it's killing the local businesses. It would be one thing if WalMart kept it's prices low by buying the cheapest American made goods, but they buy the cheapest in the world - which is just another nail in the coffin for US manufacturing.

WalMart is indeed where they're at because they have the lowest price, mainly because they follow the Japanese business practice of demanding ever lower prices year in and year out from their suppliers. People obviously shop there for low prices. Not because they don't care about the products being manufactured offshore but because the economic straits that they're in. Granted it doesn't encompass all of WalMart's customers, but still a large number really can't afford to shop elsewhere. Even after shopping at WalMart or Sam's Club they still find themselves short and out of funds.

The capitalism that allows a man or woman to build a better mousetrap and sell it to the world is a marvelous thing. All of society benefits from creative capitalism.

The capitalism that allows a very rich person to use someone else's money to buy a failing company at rock bottom prices only to strip the employees of their vested pension plans, fire everyone, shutter the factory, and sell off the equipment isn't so wonderful.

"Destructuve capitalism" is great for vultures like Romney, but it doesn't help anyone else at all.

Steve,

MSNBC Host and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough

Wonderful thing the internet....

He just might have someone listen to him again once he reestablishes his credibility. Credibility you ask? Yeah I ask it because we need to get answers to issues like this...

www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis

we've been waiting for over a decade.....

Once he explains this, he might have something interesting to say again.

Steve - I occassionally watch Joe - not for him but for his guests - when he speaks my right hand has a reflex upward - a bird He revealed a week or so ago he also signed the Grover Norquist pledge and Micha - if she rolls her eyes one more time - just might scream - what a puppet

the clip is on thebottom99percent.com

Something Adam Smith CONDEMNED in his book, "Wealth of Nations". His biggest boogymen were the royal monopoly and the royal chartered company - both entities created to allow a few favorites to control entire markets and reap the bulk of the wealth from those markets at the expense of the rest of the nation.

This SAME anti-corporatist attitude inspired the American Revolution - remember, the tea tax was PRIMARILY about supporting the royal charted corporation, the EAST INDIA COMPANY - a PRIVATE company. Compare THAT with the republican/libertarian position of massive TAXPAYER subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The "founding fathers" must be spinning.

ryoushi12

....republican/libertarian position of massive TAXPAYER subsidies for the fossil fuel industry....

I don't know where you are learning you libertarianism from, but, LIBERTARIANS are against ALL subsidies to ANYONE!

They stand for Full Free Markets, if a commodity cannot sustain itself in a free market, then it should die a natural death.

Unlike our Republican/Democrat friends.

They stand for Full Free Markets, if a commodity cannot sustain itself in a free market, then it should die a natural death.

And how then does libertarianism deal with services or products that are needed but cannot be supported by a profit oriented market place?

Why should market viability be the sole determinant of whether or not a product or service exists?

Yes the Libertarians are for Full Free Markets - UNHINDERED.

Back to the free market crushing Monopolies.

Back to the innovation crushing Monopolies.

Back to a handful of people having everything.

Libertarians are Friedmanites and Freidman economic thery has failed everywhere its been implemented. The republicans all adhere to Friedman principals, that's why the economy tanked.

Right. It is also a well known fact that small businesses were responsible for the majority of jobs created.

"There was a period when small businesses were creating more jobs than big businesses, and right now that’s not the case," said Shane in an interview. "It's a cause for concern that they were once big job creators and they’re falling behind.“

There is a good reason for that. Scarce jobs mean lower wages. It means less job mobility. It means you can squeeze more out of every worker. It means nobody will complain because they know if they get fired, they will lose everything.

Big business knows exactly what they are doing, and they ain't going to quit.

The republicans all adhere to Friedman principals

Like hell they do.

The MODERN Republican Party is the most fiscally irresponsible group in the history of the nation.

The MODERN Republican Party doesn't know the difference between the Permanent Income Hypothesis and the hole in their backsides. Friedman explained why the Republican 'welfare for the wealthy program' is stupid back in the 1950s.

The MODERN Republican Party wants to REPEAT the Great Depression by STRANGLING the national economy at the very moment it needs air to survive. Friedman is spinning in his grave.

There is one candidate from Texas who was yelling about the mortgage bubble and out of control government corporatism for at least the last ten years, but remember, like Ross Perot, he is a wacko.

(when I hear the people on this board complain about outsourcing jobs over seas today, I have visions of that Texas whacko and his "Giant Sucking Sound" warning of jobs leaving the country 23 years ago. Nobody listened then, nobody is listening now.)

I voted for Ross Perot...twice!

Ross Perot, biggest welfare queen in the country - 90% of his wealth was obtained thru GOVERNMENT contracts.

Well said, sir.

"Reasonable Rick" knows his chances against Mitty are slimmer than his resume. I hear giant sucking noises from his advisors hoping for the VP slot for this special interest pawn.

So, ryoushi12, you feel that a company which gets much of its work through government contracts is somehow suspect, tainted by its client, or even parasitic? Would you kindly expand on that? And do you have a problem with just Ross Perot, or are you an equal opportunity scoffer? How do you feel about, say, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Xe (formerly known as Blackwater), Raytheon and Rockwell International, and all those other Fortune 500 companies that get the lion's share of their business from government contracts?

Really, what a brown nose, you are doing a heck of a job brownie.

Forrest,

WE must be politically correct...

it's having an analy retentive nasal cavity

More like anally tropic nasal cavity.

Accurate post. Until we get the influence money out of Congress, we are spiraling towards plutocracy and/or oligarchy.

Please recall that Adam Smith supported progressive tax structures for collecting revenues. "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."..."The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" Smith's version of laissez-faire capitalism has been prostituted by the GOP and Tea Party at the behest of their billionaires masters.

I like this "Adam Smith" fellow. He doesn't sound like anybody running for President, except "you know who".

The answer to your question, is no; however, it's the political process. It's a poor showing on the GOP's part, but there's a lot capital to made off this bogus GOP PRIMARY. this their contribution to a slow economy. I wish had a printing press or invested in one. Think of all the money these clowns are spending. Romney is a non-brainer. He being backed by the Mormon Church and their corporate interests. You can bet Utah money is on Romney. This is their push for the highness office in the country. they haven't been this popular since the Osmond Family, Brigham Young University, in a Bowl Game, and The Utah Jazz in the NBA finals. Latter Day Saints! You all better wake up!

You only have to live in Salt Lake City for a short while to learn about this cult. They make the teabaggers look like flaming liberals. It is a nutjob religion, and they suck money out of their followers like a Hoover vacuum. They are heavily into recruiting, which is how Romney dodged the draft. They require 4 years of missionary work indoctrinating victims. No beer or smokes for you, and if you want to buy a Playboy, you have to ask for one. They keep them behind the counter. Strange behavior for a cult that abides multiple wives....

Matthias Klein

you lost me at "righteousness" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Remember the civil war and how unwillingness and stubborness led to the bloodiest war in the history of the US. Great Britain got rid of slavery in a peaceful way. The United States, where all men are created equal on paper, had to have it pried out of their fingers.

I do not know where you are learning your history also, if you knew anything about the Civil War, you would know that it started over an issue called "States Rights" and the misinterpretation of it stemming from the Constitution.

Lincoln plainly stated on many occasions that if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do it, if he could preserve it by freeing all of the slaves he would do it, if he could preserve the union by freeing some and leaving other in bondage he would do that also. The northern states were called UNIONISTS, the army was called the UNION ARMY for this reason.

Abolition was the calling used to galvanize the people in the north to continue the war when resolve was weakening due to many early southern military victories, When he was convinced that Unionism was insufficient to galvanize the people he decided to free the slaves. This is why Lincoln waited for a union victory to issue his emancipation proclamation. He had a long two year wait.

After that, it became a war of abolition, a quote" Righteous" war rather than a political war.

FINALLY I FIND A POST WORTH READING AFTER 7000 worthless ones.

Dear Egilman, please read Carl Sandburg's biography of Abraham Lincoln. Also, remember that what politicians say is usually tailored to gain the greatest political effect at that moment. Your understanding of the political and societal motivations in the 1860s is probably, after 150 years, somewhat distorted. Linclon also said, "I will not live by the sweat of another man's labor!" He also said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861. Also, your comment about "states rights" is misleading. What rights were they arguing about? It was about whether slavery would be expanded to new states or not.......................thus, slavery.

Are you saying the 1% would stoop to "working' the system. Say it ain't so!

Exactly right. Thanks.

"God" freed the slaves Matt? Gee, here I thought it was men of decency and courage who freed them. Tell me, why does "god" allow ANY injustices to happen in the first place? And don't give me the idiotic "free will" argument, it torpedoes your "god freed the slaves" premise as well.

I see, Ike Eisenhower & Ronald Reagan were Nazi's huh?

Look up the definitions. Discern the differences.

.and Obama is the only one standing up for what America can be. We do not want an economy built on the house of cards that caused this horrific mess.

And just what America might that be?

The America that used to have a middle class?

The America whose foreign policy didn't interfere in the affairs of other countries?

The America that used to care about it's seniors, it's children, it's poor, it's veterans, it disabled, it's homeless, it's infrastructure, it's educational system?

The America where individuals used to take personal responsibility, and lived within their means and treated each other with respect and exhibited basic manners?

The America where children showed respect to their elders?

The America where politicians showed respect to each other?

The America that sued to exist before it's politicians were bought and sold like toilet paper?

The America whose politicians made an effort to represent real people rather than corporate people?

The America where parents accepted the responsibility of raising their children and teaching them moral values?