Maybe election cycles are not the time to do this, but I just unfriended someone on Facebook. I new that she was a Romney supporter and a few weeks back she posted something I considered racist and insulting.
10/8/11 - Bill Bennett at the 2011 Values Voter Summit suggests a bumper sticker about Barack Obama:
"If you voted for him the last time to prove you are not a racist, you must vote against him this time to prove you are not an idiot."
It wasn't just the above quote, it was all done up in a poster. I decided against commenting and let it go by even though I was incensed.
Then she posted that the Vice President was speaking jibberish in the debate last week. I did not comment on that.
Today I re-posted this:
This is a statement from an earlier post by The Truth of It:
"It doesn't so much bother me that the Romney/Ryan campaign isn't listening to the fact checkers, more so that their supporters are so morally lacking that they have a limitless tolerance for dishonesty. I guess when people can't be honest with themselves, they're not the best judge of honesty in others."
Rob Portman Falsely Claims Unemployment Is Higher Than When Obama Took Office
livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com
Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) inaccurately claimed that unemployment is higher now than when President Obama took office.
She commented "What an ignorant generalization. Shame on the author." I commented back in the heat of my reaction and then unfriended her - not to avoid further comment but because I have lost tolerance for people who attack the media and attack the fact checkers and don't bother to try to get to the truth of things. People who accept candidates based on their image and look no further for some substance. Who don't bother to look for the reality behind the spin.
For instance, why the doesn't the Democratic party make more of the fact that Romney made the Olympics a success because the
government bailed him out? Yes, his great management of that event was based on getting 10 million or so from congress.
And Bain Capital, his calling card for being such a good businessman? While not bailed out by taxpayers, per se, bailed out from bankruptcy by
a deal with the FDIC.
As a businessman, Romney made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare."The Cato Institute said the story of the Romney-linked companies is "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and
leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill." An example? After the pension plan at Bain-controlled GS Steel was underfunded (read raided) and the company went bankrupt, the federal agency for pension insurance supplied a $44 million bail out. According to Retuers, “records show that the mill's Bain-backed management was confronted several times about the fund's shortfall, which, in the end, required an infusion of funds from the federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp.
Romney personally saved $2.6 million in just one year on a tax loophole that allows wealthy executives at firms like Romney’s to pay a lower tax rate on their income than many middle class workers. Private equity executives are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings, a rate well below the 35 percent tax on ordinary income. Most of his income comes from distributions by Bain Capital, the private equity firm that he left in 1999 but he still takes the discounted rate.
So - I suppose some people can see a smart businessman who can lead the country - what I see is someone who has taken advantage of what the government has made available in order to get rich and richer.
So - who is more of a taker? Someone trying to get back on their feet after losing a job or getting sick or disabled or needing help to make ends meet on their minimum wage job? Or a "leader" like Mitt Romney?
