Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

The GOP blocked something. Shocking!

 

They didn't block it because they're opposed to it. It's unfair to suggest something so self-evident.

 

They blocked the legislation because the opposed the legislation.

That's self-evident. It's really simplistic to think otherwise.

 

I'll take my simplistic over your disingenuous any day.

 

Mitt Romney at Fenway Park for the Patriots Day game. One of the great New England traditions.

It should be noted by all Red Sox fans that Boston has not won a World Series since Obama took office.

 

No you wouldn't.

Because, when the GOP proposes legislation to reduce the debt -- which we all say is a noble goal -- you will oppose it.

But, you would object if I said that it meant you were against reducing the debt. You would say you were against the way the GOP went about it -- that you disagreed with their cuts and priorities.

(And, if you don't give a shit about the debt, substitute some other issue.)

 

Hopefully he is throwing out the first pitch. It should be a gem of a photo.

 

WHEN the GOP introduces legislation to reduce the debt? We're still waiting.

 

This will come up during the campaign. It was interesting how the LDS Church and Mormon society in the West moved away from communitariansim after Utah achieved statehood in 1896.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/when_mormons_were_socialists/singleton/

 

Further proof that W was the worst president of all-time. Every president since Warren Harding presided over a country that didn't see the Red Sox winning a World Series. But Bush had to see the Red Sox win it twice in eight years.

 

I worked with an Italian singer who was Mormon. Apparently, Mormon's outside North America are rather socialist.

 

They blocked aid to states that would have kept a lot of women (and minorities too, for that matter) on the job because they opposed aid to states that would have kept a lot of government workers on the job. It is indisputable that that section of the American Jobs Act would have been disproportionately good for women and blacks, who work in the public sector at higher rates than white males. Maybe the GOP doesn't want to layoff women and blacks, but their stated goals of reducing the size of state and federal governments would have a disproportionate impact on women and blacks. To then criticize the president for promoting policies that are bad for women and blacks, as many a GOPer has done, is the very definition of disingenuous.

It doesn't really matter what the GOP or the Democratic Party says it's for. The only evidence we have of what they're for is the policy goals and initiatives they've put forth. And the Democrats in Congress, particularly during the recession and the ensuing recovery, have pursued policy goals that are much more favorable in the short-term for women, minorities, and the middle class.