double down tommy lol

Knew  that was the idiot Burton from the headline .

This guy is so full of talking points and crap that even the lefties on Morning Joe were dying laughing at him .

He is so lame he could not beat out Carney for Press Ferret .

This is a ridiculous premise and subject for an article .

Shame on you .

Only an Obama spokesman would know better than anyone else when it comes to lack of “core principles”…or any principles at all.

Tommy’s mission is quantity over quantity. If he can’t do his Master’s bidding in one post–do multiple!!

so you don’t see the innate hypocrisy?

As the right has a single priority any distance between current rhetoric and past action can be quietly forgiven.  

Barry’s runnin scared.

Burton is a joke.  Listening to him makes me want to burst my own eardrum (and I’ve had that happen and HURTS, but I’d still rather do it than listen to him).

so you see romney heated, aggressive and angry?

No we just realize that past statements not withstanding, he’s be 1000% times better than what we have now. 

Said the man whose former boss (0bama) has core principles that include hating and destroying America.

-0bama – Worst-

Thank you for offering an imperfect summary as affirmation. Glad we agree.

Writing about Bill Burton’s comment? You’ve got to be kidding.
This one only deserves a “face palm”.

Romney didn’t allow a douchebag leftist activist to filibuster the town hall, not any more complicated than that.

As far as Tommy doubling down, he’s simply trying to be fair and balanced, I mean, look at the amount of type he and Mediaite devoted to the mainstream media’s ignoring congresswoman Fredrica Wilson referring the the tea party as “the enemy” at her town hall. Oh, that’s right, not a peep, never mind.

Isn’t it awesome how the proggies are so panicked, they’ll write about any two bit never-was, as long as they disparage a Republican front-runner? They’re going to be the cutest little things when they have their fits next year. We should have them write sentences. :)

So long Mittens.

Romney is simply far too two-faced to satisfy any serious-minded people – including those in his own party, who wipe their eyes in disbelief at this front-runner, continuing to ponder the question: Is this the best we can do in a year when Obama is so vulnerable and unpopular!?! 

That’s twice now that I’ve seen Romney a little frustrated because people want to criticize him but then don’t seem to want to give him a fair shot at answering. I imagine it’s happened a lot more than that. I’m on his side in that regard. If a politicians gives you the chance to be heard and ask a question, then have the wits and courtesy to not interrupt or shout them down. Shut your pie hole let them answer.

Fiscal responsibility is a positive not a negative. The question is ,how do we achieve it? If Romney indeed balanced the budget by raising taxes and fees that something worth noting. This mantra of “cut spending only” seems unrealistic to me. How do we find a real world solution if one portion isn’t willing to consider facts beyond their own ideology.

Mitt Romney has no core principles? Like Barack Obama does?

Please.

What the hell is some moron that is nothing more than a mouth piece for the Obama administration doing questioning anybodies core principals?  That makes zero sense. WTF do those people know about principals? Maybe somebody has read about principals in Obamaland, but that does not equate to having them.

Re-read your last paragraph.  You make demands of other you are unwilling to commit yourself too:

Quote: “How do we find a real world solution if one portion isn’t willing to consider facts beyond their own ideology?”  Ask that question of yourself COSMOS.

Moreover, How many times did I ask you “who commits the greater sin, the man who refuses alms to the poor, or, the man who forces others to give?”

Purveyor

Tommy is a smart marketer, he bashes Republicans and Conservatives knowing it is going to drive traffic to Mediatie. Want to cure this…stop visiting this site for a week or two and watch the traffic drop. 

WOW, what is going on around here?  Two articles pushing the same story line about Romney being a mad man.  It looks like Tommy got some talking points and directions last time he was at the WH and is carrying out those directions now.  Work hard to destroy any opponent of Obama….sad that mediaite is becoming more and more msnbcish, where truth and fact are being set aside for slander and misinformation.

Mitt is a good man as a moderate, but trying to be right wing is his downfall.

The articles did not say Romney was a mad man. Get used to media coverage, it will only be getting more intense.

Well then, if bashing republicans gets you traffic, why stop?

Sorry, but Mitt has a problem. He is by nature a moderate, but he is pretending to be a conservative because he thinks he can not win without doing that. Problem is that his past moderate record impeaches his conservative credentials.

Mitt’s core principle is to get elected.

With respect to your question, our Constitution does indeed provide for taxation, so the answer appears to be the former.

Thank you for considering my question.  I ask many ‘philosophical’ questions, as a method to gain insight into the real and tangible questions of the time. “Zeit Geist.”

Unfortunately, and respectfully, you added a facet to my proffered conundrum, a bit too early.  In other words, you answered a question I hadn’t yet asked?  LOL  Which, in this case, is a compliment and NOT a criticism as I believe you understood the implications, hence connected the dots, so to speak.

Please go back to the original question and remove the “Constitution,” (Law) from your logic and only address the philosophical implications?  The question, distills the contemporary tax debate to its essence, philosophically.  Depending on how one answers the question gives insight into an individuals political/social proclivities.

I suggest you have extrapolated, then asked yourself and answered the following question: “Who commits the greater CRIME, the man who refuses to pay his taxes, or, the MEN and WOMEN who write Tax Law, (Legislate) that unfairly targets, or, relieves a specific group?”

In conclusion, what you have done is prematurely expounded on a question, by changing it from one of Philosophy to one of Law.

I would enjoy reading a response if you have one…

Purveyor

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap,  wel done!

I suggest that Obama and company ‘had’ (past tense, hopefully) goals, but, certainly not principles.  Obama’s professed “principles” swept him to power…

As a purely academic exercise, what were Marx and Engels “principles?”  Those two may well have had such, but, by the time Lenin and Trotsky got ahold of the reigns of power, all that remained were “goals.”

Nice work…

Purveyor

I doubt you have a realistic concept of of what my ideology may be or how I consider others.
I’ve addressed your question already. You just didn’t care for my response. I’ll try again, with the words of that great American philosopher Kwai Chang Caine.

“Faced with two evils, any man must choose”

And 0bama’s core principle is to get re-elected.

Good Lord you are evasive and/or afraid.  

Quote: “Faced with two evils,” COSMOS, you wouldn’t “choose” either.  Rather, you’d attempt to negotiate, telling those evils how nice you are and well meaning.  The result would be, at the very least, you and your compatriots would get the proverbial “short end of the stick.”

I don’t, Quote: “have any realistic concept of what [your] ideology may be or how [you] consider others.” Because you typically, evade any inquiry by way fear, not cunning or strength.

You have NOT addressed my question(s), as again, you evade by answering a question, with a question!

I can very easily play with your quote from Caine as I am not afraid of philosophical implications, of which you appear to be.  As if the etherea of philosophy requires something of you that you are afraid you lack?

Anyway, I assume you are relating Caine’s quote to my question?  I am not certain that the options and potential answers contained in my question, must remain “evils.”  Whereas you have accepted the premise.  Why not debate your way out of the premise, thus, asserting your own?  For instance: Is it possible that by committing and choosing one answer, that answer is no longer a sin or evil, rather is elevated to a positive?  Conversely, would the opposite conundrum be true?  ”Faced with two virtues, a man must choose?” (between two virtues, hmm) 

MY original question: “Which man commits the greater sin, the man who refuses alms to the poor, or, the man who forces such to be given?”  You and I both know that the question forces YOU to reflect on your “sincerely held belief” that you and your ‘mystery ideology’ believe.  At the very least, my question forces you to acknowledge that there is another, valid viewpoint on the subject of raising taxes and the debt limit?

Isn’t philosophy fun?  LOL

Purveyor 

Good Lord you are evasive and/or afraid.

   You grossly overestimate the impact of your own posts and the importance of an internet comments section.

I don’t, Quote: “have any realistic concept of what [your] ideology may
be or how [you] consider others.” Because you typically, evade any
inquiry by way fear, not cunning or strength.

I think my positions are fairly obvious to people who read with comprehension and who have learned how to have the adult exchange of views you seem to shy away from. It has nothing to do with fear, and more to do with just not being entertained, informed or intrigued by your style. I asked you several times to explain in clear language what point you were trying to make and how your question related specifically to the current events we were discussing. You chose instead to waste time making faulty assessments of my position rather than spell out your own. It’s unclear to me whether that’s sincere or just some tactic to try and goad me into responding the way you want me to. It doesn’t matter to me either way because I’m not interested in playing that game.

You have NOT addressed my question(s), as again, you evade by answering a question, with a question!

I told your question was far to broad and lacking in specifics to have any real application. I still hold that to be true. That’s why I asked you to elaborate. Philosophical quips like that sometimes make a valid broad point but in real life there are details to deal with. I see someone else answered your question and your response was to suggest they go back and do it over. It’s what I would expect and why I’m not interested.

Anyway, I assume you are relating Caine’s quote to my question?  I
am not certain that the options and potential answers contained in my
question, must remain “evils.”

  Since you referred to them as sins I think they qualify. But again, I’m not interested unless we apply it to real world scenario, such as ;  Both, refusing to help the needy, and forcing your will upon another might be seen as negative , but context is important in judging a course of action.

Superficially , charity , or welfare, might be seen as compassion, but if we see it creates dependency then we have to reconsider the impact of how we help. Giving a man a fish addresses his immediate need . Teaching him to fish addresses his long term needs and resources. Both are valid in the right situation.

At the very least, my question forces you to acknowledge that there is
another, valid viewpoint on the subject of raising taxes and the debt
limit?

Are you assuming I ever said otherwise? If so you are incorrect.

Furthermore, My question, at least, offers the possibility of another viewpoint. The reader, hopefully, ‘should’ discern the obvious: “not everybody in the world feels like me,” that there are other questions and answers out there on “the perimeter, where there are no stars.” The contemporary Liberal on the subject of taxes and the debt ceiling, tends to only see the need for more Governmental income. (taxes) However, the question, if considered, should make the reader see or recall that history is replete with tax abuse, or, as the Founder’s put it– “taxation without representation?” VALKYRIE, I hope you found the question compelling and simply leaped with interest and not offense? Sincerely, Purveyor

The majority of comments I see around here bash the Democrats, not Republicans, so I think your premise is kinda flawed.

To me Mitt is Mr. Plastic Fantastic, Velveeta Cheese, trying to be all things to all people and pleasing no one. Perhaps that’s how he’ll get elected.

Little Billy Burton an obnoxious mouth piece for Obama

Quote; “You grossly overestimate the impact or your own posts and the importance of an internet comments section.”

Yet, here YOU are, playing the game, deeply involved.  Your own behavior belies your assertion.  Moreover,  You have told me that my questions and/or dialogue is vague, non-specific perhaps, circumspect.  I admitted to you they were deliberately such as they are philosophical questions?  Yet you, subsequently, quoted the Philosopher Caine, which was, effectively, asking me to concern myself with your philosophical interest, and neglect mine?  Do you see the irony and hypocrisy?  LOL  (Note: I did address  Caine’s quote, quite thoroughly.  I didn’t whine about, in fact I found it relevant and amusing)

All too often people and groups jump too far ahead without a core philosophy.  A king, Queen or Dictator doesn’t need a philosophy as they govern by fiat.  Our founder’s spent much time and thought preparing a philosophy for future generations, that was/is coherent.  Also, and most importantly, the American Philosophy spreads power amongst an “Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.  A whole new philosophy of human interaction was born in 1776-1787.

I did not chastise Valkyrie, in fact, I complimented him as he could see what you could not: the connection of philosophical questions and the real world.  I too, very much desire that philosophy remove itself from academe and into the voting booth and legislature, etc.  The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule were once considered philosophy, (still are) however, John Locke, Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson also proffer philosophy. (compare and contrast)

Quote: “I think my positions are fairly obvious.”  If that is the case, then why do I continue to ask you questions?”  I must be one of those people who do not read with “comprehension,” you refer too.  COSMOS, yours and other Socialists political philosophy tends to ‘situational.’  That has been the point of this exercise; I had hoped this might occur to you on your own, but, you asked me to be specific, so.  Meaning, Socialist Philosophy is flexible and capricious much like failed Governance of the past.  However, once Socialism burrows its way in, can be quite difficult to get rid of… Ouch!

The Purveyor of Rhetoric

VALKYRIE,

I just wanted to be clear, that I appreciate your comment.  I have been trying to get COSMOS to play, so to speak, and he just refuses.  However, you, jumped in the game alacrity.  My compliments.

Purveyor

Yet, here YOU are, playing the game, deeply involved.  Your own behavior belies your assertion.

  Wait, I thought you said I wouldn’t play the game and that meant I was afraid and was defeated?
My presence here proves nothing. I come to exchange ideas and for casual entertainment. Claiming anything about a comments section could elicit fear is just goofy.

You have told me that my questions and/or dialogue is vague,
non-specific perhaps, circumspect.  I admitted to you they were
deliberately such as they are philosophical questions?  Yet you,
subsequently, quoted the Philosopher Caine, which was, effectively,
asking me to concern myself with your philosophical interest, and
neglect mine?  Do you see the irony and hypocrisy? 

What I see is that I poked fun at your philosophy by quoting philosophy from a fictional TV character. Nothing hypocritical about a joke.

I did not chastise Valkyrie, in fact, I complimented him as he could see
what you could not: the connection of philosophical questions and the
real world.

I made no suggestion that you chastised Valkyrie. I understand that philosophy can be applied to real world which is what I asked you to do. I politely asked you to explain how you saw this philosophy applied to real world. You declined because I wouldn’t first answer your question. That’s okay, but as I said, I’m not at all obligated to entertain your whims. It’s not being evasive or fearful for me choose what kind of exchange I prefer.

  If that is the case, then why do I continue to ask you questions?”  I
must be one of those people who do not read with “comprehension,” you
refer too.

Since I don’t pretend to read minds and know people’s feelings and motives as you do I have no idea why you continue to ask questions. I also can’t know which of my posts you’ve read. perhaps my views were more clear with posters who were willing to be more direct in explaining their views.

Let’s just say that our posting styles appear to be incompatible. It’s fine if you don’t want a more direct exchange of views. You get to choose what you prefer as well. I’m just not interested in philosophical games and your nonsense of incorrectly discerning my views, telling me what I think and feel.
I’m capable of a direct answer to any question and am willing, if I receive one to mine.

Quote: “I see someone else (Valkyrie) answered your question and your response was to suggest they go back and do it over.  Its what I would and why I’m not interested.”

Quote: “I made no suggestion that you chastised Valkyrie.”   

Touche’,  I will, again. give you “the benefit of the doubt,” as “Allah [is] most merciful?”  Ouch!

Lastly:

“Caine,” David Carradine, was actually espousing Far Eastern Philosophy, as he had been a student of the martial arts and Orient all his life.  Therefore, I gave you the “benefit of the doubt.”  However, in your puerile state you now make make the claim you were only joking.  LOL

I seem to have to give you the “benefit of the doubt” quite a bit?

Purveyor of Rhetoric
 

There’s nothing in the statement you quoted that indicates any rebuke of Valkyrie. I don’t need any benefit of the doubt from you. I need you to understand the definition of your own word.
All I noted was that rather than explain what you meant by your philosophical question after it was answered , you suggested she go back and answer it again with new parameters given by you. As I said, it’s what I expected. You don’t seem at all interested in an honest give and take but rather a conversation you can steer to your liking. That’s the one I’m not interested in.

However, in your puerile state you now make make the claim you were only joking.

  It’s unfortunate that you feel the need to make disparaging comments and engage in your BS mind reading game. It makes your accusation of me being puerile laughable. The fact that I referred to a fictional character as a great American Philosopher should indicate to anyone I was joking.

Without being sure, I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt that your posts are sincere. I’m no longer willing to do that. If you ever decide you can handle an adult exchange of ideas without the foolish games let me know.

try to thing for yourself