His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

[The Annoyed Man]

Who knows. I just thought it was pretty interesting. We've been off the gold standard for so long, would it even be possible to get us back on it without inducing a massive social upheaval? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just honestly don't know.

[74novaman]

Who knows. I just thought it was pretty interesting. We've been off the gold standard for so long, would it even be possible to get us back on it without inducing a massive social upheaval? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just honestly don't know.

Most economists who've written about it aren't really sure how it would work out either.

I do know this: Uncertainty is almost always BAD for economic growth, so......

[Dave2]

Who knows. I just thought it was pretty interesting. We've been off the gold standard for so long, would it even be possible to get us back on it without inducing a massive social upheaval? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just honestly don't know.

Most economists who've written about it aren't really sure how it would work out either.

I do know this: Uncertainty is almost always BAD for economic growth, so......

Depends on what the uncertainty is about... For instance, I'm uncertain as whether I want a regular chocolate shake or a rolo mcflurry, but either way is good news for McDonald's.

[74novaman]

Who knows. I just thought it was pretty interesting. We've been off the gold standard for so long, would it even be possible to get us back on it without inducing a massive social upheaval? I'm not saying it isn't possible, I just honestly don't know.

Most economists who've written about it aren't really sure how it would work out either.

I do know this: Uncertainty is almost always BAD for economic growth, so......

Depends on what the uncertainty is about... For instance, I'm uncertain as whether I want a regular chocolate shake or a rolo mcflurry, but either way is good news for McDonald's.

Here, I saved you from having to put on your reading glasses.

[The Annoyed Man]

I found this article about Gawker.com: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/31 ... williamson.

It's an "exposé" by Gawker of Bain Capital's offshore tax avoidance strategies, attempting to paint Romney with a "dishonest capitalist" brush. What's hilarious is that it turns out that Gawker.com does exactly the same thing with it's own strategy. But the real money quote which is relevant to this thread is this:

Incidentally, there is nothing in the Gawker report or the accompanying documents suggesting that Romney or Bain did anything improper. And neither did Gawker, for that matter: U.S. tax practices create very powerful incentives to pursue avoidance strategies. Gawker’s owners apparently know that, even if its writers lack the guts or the intellectual capability to acknowledge as much.

We eagerly await the next Gawker editorial on the need for corporate-tax reform.

I won't hold my breath for that editorial because the point of their article wasn't to say it was wrong, it was to try and slander Romney.

[Heartland Patriot]

TAM, looks like someone has already posted that stuff that Gawker put out. Of course, without the truth about Gawker included.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=57624

Just letting you know.

[RoyGBiv]

More evidence that the O-Bubble is deflating...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/m ... ade-359249" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

even the president's most ardent supporters admit there is somewhat deflated buzz around Obama, as opposed to the frenzy of 2008, when such acts as Kanye West, Nelly, Death Cab for Cutie and Sheryl Crow gladly performed in venues big and small every night of the convention.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... onvention/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"No place is more fickle than Hollywood. Obama over promised and under delivered with regard to ‘Hope & Change’ and he is experiencing the consequences with the lack of celebrity support at this year’s DNC," political expert and humorist Rob Taub told FOX411's Pop Tarts column. "Many celebrities are still making large financial contributions to the campaign, but they’re concerned about public displays of affection to a candidate with waning popularity. At best, expect B-list stars at the convention."

From May... WARNING: Strong Language: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/how-b ... -hollywood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Embedded in that article (first paragraph) is a link to a John Lovitz profanity-laced anti-Obama "comedy" rant.
I won't link it here.. Very profane.

[sjfcontrol]

From May... WARNING: Strong Language: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/how-b ... -hollywood" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Embedded in that article (first paragraph) is a link to a John Lovitz profanity-laced anti-Obama "comedy" rant.
I won't link it here.. Very profane.

“I’ll write the check,” one top producer, whose films have made over a billion at the box office, told me. “But I’m not going to bother voting for him.”

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM, looks like someone has already posted that stuff that Gawker put out. Of course, without the truth about Gawker included.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=57624

Just letting you know.

I saw that this morning, after I posted.

To the third party voters who refuse to believe that their 3rd party vote will throw the election to Obama, I offer the following illustration:

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Dave2]

To the third party voters who refuse to believe that their 3rd party vote will throw the election to Obama, I offer the following illustration:

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

As an ex-coworker used to say, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

Of course, they'll turn around and say they feel the same way about voting for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils, so I guess we're back where we started.

[RoyGBiv]

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/b ... s-begun-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama and his socialist cabal have channeled Hoover and FDR, who turned an ordinary bust into The Great Depression with a toxic strategy of more government, more spending, more debt, more rules and regulations strangling business, higher minimum wages, more power to unions, more entitlements, higher taxes, more printing of money by Fed, and trade tariffs. This is the Obama blueprint squared.

The question this time is, is Obama doing it because he understands nothing about business? Or does he understand exactly what he’s doing? Is Obama’s goal to overwhelm the system, incite crisis, sow doubt about capitalism, and force the citizens to beg for government to save them, thereby opening the door to Socialism? Is Obama’s plan to redistribute the wealth, and at the same time to bankrupt the people with wealth and power, thereby crippling his political opposition?

Does it really matter?

Here’s where the story gets downright frightening. This time the results are going to be dramatically worse than 1929. This time we are facing The Greatest Depression ever.

Why? Because The Great Depression had NONE of problems and obligations we are now facing:

[The Annoyed Man]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/17/ ... necessary/ (THIS IS CBS!!!!)
’2016: Obama’s America’ Movie Is Disturbingly Necessary
August 17, 2012 11:44 AM
Written by Scott Paulson

Yet, I’m glad I saw the hyped-film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nation’s trust in him with the Oval Office.

To watch this movie and realize – or simply be reminded of – all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romney’s taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current president’s past?

Need I say more? (Emphasis mine)

[baldeagle]

The gold standard ties the hands of the Federal Reserve. They can no longer inflate the money supply, since the dollar is tied to a specific weight of gold. In the early 1900's, the dollar was tied to 1.5 grams of fine gold. In 1934 Roosevelt set the gold standard at $35 per troy ounce of gold. Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. The dollar is now worth about 0.00060790273556 of an ounce of gold. IOW, in the early 1900,s the dollar was worth 0.0529109 of a troy ounce. Today it's worth 1.148917776035 % of what it was worth just a century ago. Or to put it another way, the US government, through the Federal Reserve, has stolen $99 of every $100 that your forefathers owned in assets.

When the gold standard was in force, the government routinely went off it to finance large expenses (primarily wars) and then went back on it after the war was over. That should tell you all you need to know about gold standards. They prevent governments from ripping off the assets of their citizens, which is why they are so unpopular.

[The Annoyed Man]

Some interesting information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Oh, I can't wait to read the answer to this one, although I think we all know what's coming. Since it is "silly" to say it's a 2 man race, who, pray tell, is the 3rd person with a chance to win?

The Republican convention has started and we're still waiting to learn the identity of this viable 3rd candidate. Did I miss your answer?

Chas.