Greetings from RNC

[Bubblehead1980]

Anyone else in Tampa this week for the convention? Today was great:arrgh!: Reallycould feel the "energy" on the floor tonight.Paay attention and help us kick the trash out in November:arrgh!:

[August]

Anyone else in Tampa this week for the convention? Today was great:arrgh!: Reallycould feel the "energy" on the floor tonight.Paay attention and help us kick the trash out in November:arrgh!:

I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

I'm a pretty conservative guy but while I may not be able to bring myself to vote for Democrat Bolshevik wannabees I'm not giving Romney the nod either.

[Hottentot]

I love the tone of this thread. :har:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I love the tone of this thread. :har:

I don't know how else you expected it to be. :hmmm:

GT+Politics=:/\\!!

[Bilge_Rat]

I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

I'm a pretty conservative guy but while I may not be able to bring myself to vote for Democrat Bolshevik wannabees I'm not giving Romney the nod either.

OMG! August is moving to the Dark side! :o

[Hottentot]

I don't know how else you expected it to be. :hmmm:

Something with little more original name calling.

[antikristuseke]

People at the extreme ends of the political spectrum wouldn't recognize an original idea if it was hurled at their face with a brick attached to it.

[Penguin]

Sounds like an energetic evening, including:
paying respect to the delegate from Puerto Rica (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vr5kMguEqi8)
feeding a starving camerawoman from CNN (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/cnn-republican-convention-black-camerawoman.php)
and showing a clear stance against tyrants (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ron-paul-supporters-rebel-convention-floor-****-you-tyrants)

but hey, at least you get the uncensored version of Mitt's book :up:

Mitt Romney book includes deleted line
TAMPA — Maybe Mitt Romney assumes GOP delegates won’t read all the way to page 177 of his book, ‘‘No Apology,’’ included in their gift bags.
If they do, they’ll find an uncomfortable sentence for Romney — a sentence dropped from the paperback edition. It alludes to his push, as Massachusetts governor, to require all residents to obtain insurance as part of health care reforms.
‘‘We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care,’’ Romney wrote.
That sounds a lot like the health care mandate in ‘‘Obama*care,’’ which Romney now vows to undo.
In the paperback edition, the passage refers only to preventing a government takeover of health care.
Publications including the Washington Examiner took note of the hardback’s presence.

(source: http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/08/27/ron-paul-delegates-try-strike-down-new-gop-rules/NmTUOaMQSCAfn3zkg5JmtL/story.html)



I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

I'm a pretty conservative guy but while I may not be able to bring myself to vote for Democrat Bolshevik wannabees I'm not giving Romney the nod either.

I don't care much for the Dems, but trying to force the delegates onto the party line, like they did with the rule change at the RNC, looks pretty much like the Bolsheviks did back then: "No vote for you, Menshevik scum!"

A side-question: Can you tell a little about Romneycare in your state? Has it been an improvement for you and others in your state, an how about the costs in comparision to before?

[Armistead]

I didn't think Romney would stand a chance before, but I now see it as possible.

All the strong abortion talk is just to secure the fundy base, but it is scary that Ryan believes a raped woman should be forced to carry it.

Either way, both are party puppets.

[soopaman2]

My governor was the keynote speaker.

He is facing criticism here for not making it enough about Romney. But Romney has no real platform, so it is kinda hard to talk about him.:shifty:

We all know keynote speakers are next in line, in the circumstance Willard loses.

I wish Chris Christie was running and not Mitt. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, he does not turn back on his word, and has fulfilled his campaign promises to the NJ taxpayers. He reduced government bloat, and made attempts to reduce the crippling property tax burden NJ has (highest in the nation) Stern but fair. And more centrist than most Republicans nowadays.

Christie in 2016:know:

[Oberon]

I guess time will tell, but so far I haven't seen anything from Romney that would inspire people to vote for him rather than Obama. I'd have to agree with August here, the Republicans have scuttled their boat this time around.

Better luck in 2016. :salute:

[soopaman2]

I guess time will tell, but so far I haven't seen anything from Romney that would inspire people to vote for him rather than Obama. I'd have to agree with August here, the Republicans have scuttled their boat this time around.

Better luck in 2016. :salute:

I would have to third this. But is is not Romneys fault.

It is the republican partys fault.

They allowed extremists to take over. Us libs love to trash Bush jr. But I would take him over any of these fundy-Christian-Sharia candidates who have popped up (Bachmann, Santorum, Palin)

I give Romney credit as he was smart enough to say much of nothing all this time and still win his primary, but that is because his competition (Texas Gov Perry the exception) were all bat-stuff insane.

I am disgusted by Obamas lack of action. His passive nature. But that is what he is.

I do not know what Romney is. That scares me more.

Vote Christie in 2016

[mookiemookie]

It's a shame that someone can't vote for fiscal conservatism without getting hardcore extremist Christianity mixed into the deal. Once the GOP made God, guns and gays their centerpiece, they lost a lot of people.

[STEED]

I'm not impressed by either party you got over there, both look like a bunch of muppets. Mind you we're no better here in the UK, so how is the rest of the world?

[Betonov]

I'm not impressed by either party you got over there, both look like a bunch of muppets. Mind you we're no better here in the UK, so how is the rest of the world?


Don't ask. After 70 years the politics are stil: Tito's partizans good vs. Tito's partizans bad :shifty:

As a citizen of a small, export dependant country I beg of you, for the love of god, elect someone that will handle the economy :/\\!! And not school prayer, abortion and gays :/\\!!

[HunterICX]

I'm not impressed by either party you got over there, both look like a bunch of muppets. Mind you we're no better here in the UK, so how is the rest of the world?

Pretty much of the same garbage.

HunterICX

[Bilge_Rat]

In Quebec, we will have a provincial election on sept. 4.

The choices are:

1. Parti Québécois: social-democratic (communists by U.S. standards), want Quebec to separate from Canada, want to raise taxes on the "rich";

2. Liberal Party: current government, conservative (communists by U.S. standards), but have been caught up in all sorts of financial/corruption scandals;

3. Coalition Avenir-Quebec: more conservative than liberals (still communists by U.S. standards), but brand new/inexperienced. Leader is a former PQ minister who has been wishy-washy on where he stands on Quebec independence.

In other words, here as everywhere else, it is a case of voting for the lesser of three evils. :ping:

[soopaman2]

I'm not impressed by either party you got over there, both look like a bunch of muppets. Mind you we're no better here in the UK, so how is the rest of the world?


Yeppers!

On a side note, is a yank allowed to call people muppets (I always got a lul from that term) too? I keep thinking of Kermit the frog, and Fozzie bear , and it seems awkward.:O:

We usually just call our politicians...

Uh never mind.:D

[Ducimus]

I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

I'm a pretty conservative guy but while I may not be able to bring myself to vote for Democrat Bolshevik wannabees I'm not giving Romney the nod either.

Are you serious?


All the strong abortion talk is just to secure the fundy base, but it is scary that Ryan believes a raped woman should be forced to carry it.


That is just wrong on so many levels. Oh and apparently a rapist can sue for custody too. (http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/battling-a-rapist-for-parental-rights-shauna-prewitt-on-her-personal-story-of-rape-birth-and-custody-fight/?iref=storysearch)

Makes me ask, "WTF?"


It's a shame that someone can't vote for fiscal conservatism without getting hardcore extremist Christianity mixed into the deal. Once the GOP made God, guns and gays their centerpiece, they lost a lot of people.

Personally, I don't mind guns, but I don't like God and Guns mixed together. As for Gays, while i dont agree with the "lifestyle", they are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, so i say leave em alone. As for Christian fundies, they are one reason (of several) why i shy away from the right wing now. I DO NOT like religious ramrodding, and team R is loaded with evangelicals now. The republican party of today, is not the republican party of yesterday.

[August]

A side-question: Can you tell a little about Romneycare in your state? Has it been an improvement for you and others in your state, an how about the costs in comparision to before?

It's not really an improvement at least to anyone who has to pay for it.

While coverage has increased significantly the quality of health care has remained unchanged and in spite of being billed as an antidote to run away health care costs, the price of insurance premiums have jumped 5-10% every year since Romneycare was enacted, way above the national inflation rate.

[August]

Are you serious?

Yep I sure am. All they had to do is keep their noses out of social issues but they had to pander to the religious right and I think it's gonna cost them the election. At this moment the best scenario I see for the country is that Obama wins reelection as a lame duck and the Senate goes to the GoP (and the House doesn't change).

God help us all if one party (or the other) gets control of both Congress and the Oval office.

[Oberon]

What worries me the most about having a Republican Senate and a Democrat Oval Office (or vice versa) is that both sides have shown themselves willing to put political points ahead of co-operation for what's best for the nation.
So, if the economic crisis deepens, will the government be able to take any steps to combat it? Or will it be spun between left and right until its too late?

[Ducimus]

What worries me the most about having a Republican Senate and a Democrat Oval Office (or vice versa) is that both sides have shown themselves willing to put political points ahead of co-operation for what's best for the nation.
So, if the economic crisis deepens, will the government be able to take any steps to combat it? Or will it be spun between left and right until its too late?

That's what worries me. Both parties are poloraized. Compromise, a word that in my opinion is the very core of statecraft, is now considered weakness. I fear our country will crumble into ruins all around us, and both parties will still be standing there, pointing fingers at each other, with neither having done anything to prevent it.

[eddie]

Co-operation is not a word that is used by anyone in our Congress. If something goes wrong, they just blame each other. That's why they have set a new record low in the opinion of the American people. No one thinks they are worth anything.

[Betonov]

Co-operation is not a word that is used by anyone in our Congress/Parliament/Sabor. If something goes wrong, they just blame each other. That's why they have set a new record low in the opinion of the American/British/German/Slovene/Croat people. No one thinks they are worth anything.

Fixed :D

One could also expand the list to infinity

[eddie]

Fixed :D

One could also expand the list to infinity

:haha::yeah:

[soopaman2]

It is called divide and conquer.

If we are too busy attacking each other, we won't be able to attack the real problems.

1.Create an idealogical divide in the citizenry.
2.stoke the fire a bit.
3.Turn the citizens on each other.
4. Rob the country blind while the proles fight.
5. ?????
6. PROFIT

If this was 200 years ago, we would have overthrown these over the top corrupt shmucks. But we seemed to have lost our testicles. The modern politician almost rubs it in your face how dirty they are...

[STEED]

It is called divide and conquer.

If we are too busy attacking each other, we won't be able to attack the real problems.

1.Create an idealogical divide in the citizenry.
2.stoke the fire a bit.
3.Turn the citizens on each other.
4. Rob the country blind while the proles fight.
5. ?????
6. PROFIT

If this was 200 years ago, we would have overthrown these over the top corrupt shmucks. But we seemed to have lost our testicles. The modern politician almost rubs it in your face how dirty they are...

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23426732.jpg

[August]

That's what worries me. Both parties are poloraized. Compromise, a word that in my opinion is the very core of statecraft, is now considered weakness. I fear our country will crumble into ruins all around us, and both parties will still be standing there, pointing fingers at each other, with neither having done anything to prevent it.

On the other hand if either party controls the entire enchilada you get runaway spending and gobs of social engineering.

I'd much rather have the gridlock.

[Ducimus]

On the other hand if either party controls the entire enchilada you get runaway spending and gobs of social engineering.

I'd much rather have the gridlock.

That also is true. Mind you, i'm not excited about the prospect of one party, or the other being in total control. However, one could argue, that if one party got the whole enchilada, at least something would be done. The way things are going this day and age, Something, anything, is better then nothing.

Now, I don't wish for any one party to have total control, what I do wish, is this extreme left or right BS stop. All the hyperbole, jingoism, and rhetoric. It ALL needs to stop. I think that would be the first step away from polarism, and more towards the middle of the road where we need to be. Everyone, left, or right, needs to get off this "my way or the highway" kick and start meeting their fellow countrymen in the middle.
(edit: but sad to say, I don't think that will ever happen. If I was to jump on the "doomsday prepping" bandwagon, governmental and financial collapse would be my rational. )

[Penguin]

It's not really an improvement at least to anyone who has to pay for it.

While coverage has increased significantly the quality of health care has remained unchanged and in spite of being billed as an antidote to run away health care costs, the price of insurance premiums have jumped 5-10% every year since Romneycare was enacted, way above the national inflation rate.

:hmmm: doesn't look as rosy as Romney paints it. Well we have a similar problems with rising premiums and less service here, for the same reasons why Obamacare turned out to be a failure: too few efforts to stand up against the insurance and pharma lobby. Just a minor example: we pay about as much in Germany for a 10 pack of Aspirin as you guys pay for a container of 250 :huh:

[Penguin]

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning:

This is what a congressman from team R says about the current state of affairs:


So far, the House of Representatives this year has taken over 1,000 separate votes which has surpassed the most recorded votes ever in the history of Congress. We also have been "in session" voting for 146 days so far, which is also headed to a record number of days in Washington, DC. So, that's the input.

But what about the output? So far, only 107 bills have been signed into law. Over half of these were either naming something (like a post office) or extending an existing law that was scheduled to expire. several more were simple land transfers from government to government. National Review has suggested that has been only one piece of legislation of any significance that has passed and been signed into law which was the increase in the minimum wage. This Congress is on track to pass the fewest bills since electronic records have been kept. Furthermore, Congress has failed to send a single appropriations (budget/spending) bill to the President after a full month into the fiscal year. The is the first time Congress has failed to do so since 1987.

(source:http://www.campbell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2090)

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947 (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-08-16-LAZYCONGRESS_ST_U.htm)

[Platapus]

Sadly, once again I will be in a position of voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate.

Kinda depressing but perhaps that is the future of American politics -- vote for the lesser of two evils. :nope:

[Kongo Otto]

As for Christian fundies, they are one reason (of several) why i shy away from the right wing now. I DO NOT like religious ramrodding, and team R is loaded with evangelicals now. The republican party of today, is not the republican party of yesterday.


When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. (Barry Goldwater)

[Ducimus]

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947 (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-08-16-LAZYCONGRESS_ST_U.htm)


These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President Harry S. Truman called the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.


Like i said, the country could crumble all around them. And they'll still be standing their pointing fingers at each other, with neither having done anything to prevent it.

[Kongo Otto]

Just a minor example: we pay about as much in Germany for a 10 pack of Aspirin as you guys pay for a container of 250 :huh:

Btw Aspirin Price: USA (500mg Pill, 80 each Pack) 9.99 $ (http://www.drugstore.com/bayer-advanced-aspirin-extra-strength-500mg-coated-tablets/qxp359105?catid=183122)
+ Postage and package
Aspirin Price Germany: (500mg Pill, 100 each Pack) 9 € (11.28 $)
(http://www.google.de/products/catalog?hl=de&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1920&bih=918&q=aspirin+preis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15865325226604384564&sa=X&ei=JYs-UN2uHYbj4QTM9oDgAQ&ved=0CDEQ8gIwAw) + Postage and package
Price per Pill US: 0.12 US cent
Price per Pill Germany: 0.11 US cents

Not really a big price difference if you ask me. :O:


Lou Dobbs on Healthcare in Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV9JDYErujg):D

Edit:
Penguin you made me curious, so i searched for the Prices of one of the Medications i have to use daily and i found this one out:

Price Trimipramine Generic (100 Tablets, 50 mg) Germany: 20.28 € (25.41 $) (http://medikamente.onmeda.de/Medikament/Trimipramin-neuraxpharm+25|-50+mg|-75+mg|-100+mg.html)
Price Trimipramine (100 Tabletss, 50 mg) USA: 78 $ (62.24 €) (http://www.doctorsolve.com/productPage.aspx?DrugName=Trimipramine)

But we are soooo expensive here in germany! Pfffffffff
Penguin you should not believe the Politicians!! :D

[Penguin]

Btw Aspirin Price: USA (500mg Pill, 80 each Pack) 9.99 $ (http://www.drugstore.com/bayer-advanced-aspirin-extra-strength-500mg-coated-tablets/qxp359105?catid=183122)
+ Postage and package
Aspirin Price Germany: (500mg Pill, 100 each Pack) 9 ***8364; (11.28 $)
(http://www.google.de/products/catalog?hl=de&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1920&bih=918&q=aspirin+preis&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15865325226604384564&sa=X&ei=JYs-UN2uHYbj4QTM9oDgAQ&ved=0CDEQ8gIwAw) + Postage and package
Price per Pill US: 0.12 US cent
Price per Pill Germany: 0.11 US cents

Not really a big price difference if you ask me. :O:


yeah, k, but those web-pharmacies likely offer you those re-imports. This is the sick system: The pills are manufactured here, shipped to Spain or other Euro-countries, then come back to Germany: voilá: only a fraction of the price. In my local pharmacy I pay about 5 Euros for a regular 10 pack by Bayer, for generic about 3.50-4 . If I happen to buy it after 7pm, you can add some extra cash at a "emergency pharmacy" :88) In the US you get a big back for the same money over the counter in regular stores. Random example: http://www.supplylinedirect.com/analgesics-and-medications/aspirin-250-tablets/ 250 for $5.25
I don't attempt to defend the US health care system though, it is as sick as ours, just an example how people in Germany get milked.

Lou Dobbs on Healthcare in Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV9JDYErujg)

non-profit health insurance plans :har: The only people who make only few profit are the ones who actually work in healthcare, e.g. nurses

The rest of the explanation is good, but I think our health system is rotten to the core. Just remember since when you know the dreaded word "Gesundheitsreform" - just the same joke phrase as a "Steuereform". Much talk, no change in the fundamental perversions of both our tax and health system since decades.... Every single politician who attempted to change any of those got bombed down by the lobbies, resulting in even more screw-up.

EDIT. to react to the edit ;) :
Yes, the price of medicine people actually need is a whole different chapter

[Kongo Otto]

http://www.supplylinedirect.com/analgesics-and-medications/aspirin-250-tablets/ 250 for $5.25
Your link is a generic, i linked original Bayer Products and it's a 325 mg Pill (5 grains) and my link was the 500 mg original. But anyways i think you know what i mean, i think this talk that Prices for medication in germany are so high is part of an Agenda by those who want to opress us into a US Style Health care system and be sure i will fight that to the death!


The rest of the explanation is good, but I think our health system is rotten to the core.
Our Health Care isn't rotten to the core, it has some minor and some major flaws but calling it "rotten to the core" sorry Penguin but that's an utter exaggeration!
Sooner or later there will be a solution for the flaws of our health care system, but this will take years, but it will happen.

[Penguin]

Your link is a generic, i linked original Bayer Products and it's a 325 mg Pill (5 grains) and my link was the 500 mg original. But anyways i think you know what i mean, i think this talk that Prices for medication in germany are so high is part of an Agenda by those who want to opress us into a US Style Health care system and be sure i will fight that to the death!

Our Health Care isn't rotten to the core, it has some minor and some major flaws but calling it "rotten to the core" sorry Penguin but that's an utter exaggeration!
Sooner or later there will be a solution for the flaws of our health care system, but this will take years, but it will happen.

About the aspirin-link:That's why I wrote down the price fopr generic Aspirin, too.

Anyway, the agenda for affordable medication is a whole different thing than the "every-man-for-himself" agenda like those FDP-wankers want to do.
The latter is going on since years. Just look at all the privatization of hospitals, nursery homes,etc. It happened in a massive scale during the past 20,25 years. It didn't raise the standard of health care, nor lowered the costs for the patient, it only lowered the staff costs and their work conditions. The profit goes to those private companies.

Another example: It is an open secret that most people who take care of their elder relatives can only do so because they rely on illegal caretakers (who do a great job btw, and are the ones who keep the wheels spinning of a humane care for old people at home) Is anyone addressing this problem, that the so called "care insurance"(Pflegeversicherung) is nothing but a sad joke? No, Augen zu und durch. Pay more and more into any pocket but for the ones who need it the most and are the weakest members of society. Old and poor: a fatal combination...

The last "health reform": Several hundred insurance companies who all offer the same? And of course our premiums raised and also the subsides from taxes, who would have thought so?
No, man, our system needs a radical reform, not baby steps. This would mean
showing the middle finger to big pharma and all the other profiters from our health costs.
I am in favor of a tax based system, like in the Nordic countries. This is a thing where taxes do really make sense, the "tax ideal" so to say: invested into the common need. Better some money gets down the drain by some government screw-up, than feeding people who life off basic human needs. However this would directly be antagonistic to the very core of our corrupt banana republic. So: no hope for any change in Germany... :shifty:

[August]

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning

But a divided Congress is a very different situation than one between Congress and POTUS.

As I understand it, with a divided Congress each party can block the other by simple inaction. The POTUS on the other hand can veto any congressional legislation that is sent to his desk for signature but they can override his veto if they have a 2/3rds majority of congress willing to vote to override the veto

The idea is that legislative branch only gets it's way if their bill enjoys very wide and usually bipartisan support. That's the limit to their power.

The President, mindful of getting reelected in his first term and of his "legacy" in his second, only uses his veto power if he thinks that the bill enjoys only lukewarm support or he knows it'll be overridden and he wants to go on record as having opposed it. That's the limit to his power.

[1480]

Regarding the gridlock between Congress and POTUS:
I know many Americans see it as a kind of counter-balance, to keep one team from too much influence, however it can turn out to be a gridlock in the truest meaning:

This is what a congressman from team R says about the current state of affairs:


(source:http://www.campbell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2090)

USA Today confirms his stance:Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947 (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-08-16-LAZYCONGRESS_ST_U.htm)


Ok. Says the House has passed over a thousand bills. House did their job. Probably most of the rest stalled in Senate, which if I remember correctly is held by the Democrats. The last piece of the pie is it being signed into law.

[1480]

But a divided Congress is a very different situation than one between Congress and POTUS.

As I understand it, with a divided Congress each party can block the other by simple inaction. The POTUS on the other hand can veto any congressional legislation that is sent to his desk for signature but they can override his veto if they have a 2/3rds majority of congress willing to vote to override the veto

The idea is that legislative branch only gets it's way if their bill enjoys very wide and usually bipartisan support. That's the limit to their power.

The President, mindful of getting reelected in his first term and of his "legacy" in his second, only uses his veto power if he thinks that the bill enjoys only lukewarm support or he knows it'll be overridden and he wants to go on record as having opposed it. That's the limit to his power.


Nice to hear from you. You did neglect a very liberal use of executive order.

[August]

Nice to hear from you. You did neglect a very liberal use of executive order.


Good to hear from you too Stranger. Welcome back!

[CaptainHaplo]

I'm sorry to tell you but your parties planks on abortion and medicare have sunk your candidate. No way will Americans vote for a candidate who is going to ban abortions with no exceptions. No way will Americans support a voucher based medicare system.

2 points August....

First - Romney supports the three major abortion exceptions. Even the rather left leaning Huffington Post admits it - though they use it as an attempt to discredit Mitt for "flip-flopping" on the issue. For him to - even as recently as Monday - to clearly state that he supports exceptions - contrary to the party platform - makes you realize that his leadership will not be as extreme as some on the left claim. It takes one kind of courage to take a stand - it takes another to buck your own support structure - which he has done. Think about that before you "write him off"....

As for Medicare - I would have hoped that you would have taken the time to research things a little more than just accepting talking points. The Medicare plan that is supported by Romney will not make Medicare a "voucher system" - it guarantees standard Medicare for anyone 55 or over, and it allows those under 55 to have the choice of either standard Medicare OR different coverage through private enterprise. To call that a "voucher system" is simply a way for the left to demagogue it.

My mother has medicare. She took the time to look into it. She sees the likely changes as something that insures it survives. She doesn't think its perfect - there are concerns. Yet she realizes that some changes are necessary. Still - she is like a lot of older folks - they know that Obamacare took money out of Medicare - and they got nothing for it. Thinking that the older generations are blindly following this line of "Romney/Ryan want to kill old people by taking away Medicare" is simply incorrect.

Take the time to look into the reality of the subjects before you judge them. Don't fall for one side's talking points - check the facts instead.

[mookiemookie]

Take the time to look into the reality of the subjects before you judge them. Don't fall for one side's talking points - check the facts instead.

Strange advice when you've just done the exact same thing in this post, and many others.

In fact, the law limits payments to health care providers and insurers to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Lawmakers said they hoped the measures would improve care and efficiency. Those savings, spread out over the next 10 years, are then used to offset costs created by the law (especially coverage for the uninsured) so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. Ryan***8217;s statement is exaggerated and we rate it Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/

[Sailor Steve]

The President, mindful of getting reelected in his first term and of his "legacy" in his second, only uses his veto power if he thinks that the bill enjoys only lukewarm support or he knows it'll be overridden and he wants to go on record as having opposed it. That's the limit to his power.
Interesting factoid: The first six presidents - George Washington through John Quincy Adams - only used the veto on bills they felt were unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson was the first president to veto bills solely because he didn't like them.

[August]

Strange advice when you've just done the exact same thing in this post, and many others.

Except that the Presidents plan to limit payments to insurers isn't going to bring the cost of health care down at all. It just means that the patient will get a separate bill for the extra cost, and raising taxes on the medical industry only means those costs will increase significantly as they are passed on to the consumer.

Either way the cost to seniors goes up significantly under Obamacare.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - I much prefer to actually read the source of the controversy instead of the interpretation of others.

Try reading the actual CBO document about what would happen if Obamacare was repealed:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf

I will quote the relevant section that exists on page 13:

"Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billionover that 2013-2022 period."

If there was no Obamacare - this money would be spent on our Seniors. Because of Obamacare - it will not. That makes Obamacare the reason this money will not be there for the elderly. Who will absorb that cost then? Simple - the Seniors who rely on Medicare....

Don't believe its a cut to Medicare? The President says it is - and says he would veto any attempt to put that money back into Medicare. He admitted that he is more concerned making Obamacare "budget neutral" (which it is not) over keeping the funds in Medicare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t5Ha7RNpn24

So mookie - and others who want to take a third party twist and spin, go ahead. The guy who did this is asked about the cut - and he answers it regarding the cut. So its a cut to Medicare. The CBO documentation - outside of partisan spin - clearly says that Obamacare means less money for Medicare. Spin all you want - your going to find out in November that people are paying more attention to fact than to spin.

On a side note - we have had another 374k people filing for unemployment this last week. 372k the week prior. We are averaging well over 1.2 Million jobs lost EVERY MONTH - and we are creating less than 200k jobs a month. That isn't anywhere near breaking even.

What are we going to get out of Charlotte? Sandra Fluke talking about how evil it is that team R won't pay for her birth control? The left wants government "out of the bedroom" (which I agree with) - but it wants the government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom. There is no talking about the horrible economy, there is no concern about the national debt, there is only an embrace of abortion on demand (to the point of partial birth and allowing a baby who survives an abortion to outside the womb to be ignored as it sits and dies seperated from the mother), gay marriage and protecting a mandated government health program that the majority of America doesn't want.

http://www.mcclpac.org/about_obama_baipa.htm

[mookiemookie]

What are we going to get out of Charlotte?

The same empty circlejerk political crap that we got out of Tampa. A completely made up story with no basis in reality about the last four years - the same as we got from Tampa. Promises to do better - the same baseless mindless crap we got out of Tampa.

Political conventions are masturbatory exercises put on for the benefit of the party themselves, and not for the average voter. Anyone who sheds a tear over them or gets "inspired" by them is a gullible political zombie.

[Tribesman]

Sandra Fluke talking about how evil it is that team R won't pay for her birth control?
Does that mean the loony tunes "religious" nuts with closeted sexual issues are going to start calling people sluts again?

[eddie]

Have to wonder one thing, especially after Katrina. They are having the RNC now, and another hurricane shows up, what are the odds of that happening,lol

[CaptainHaplo]

The same empty circlejerk political crap that we got out of Tampa. A completely made up story with no basis in reality about the last four years - the same as we got from Tampa. Promises to do better - the same baseless mindless crap we got out of Tampa.

Political conventions are masturbatory exercises put on for the benefit of the party themselves, and not for the average voter. Anyone who sheds a tear over them or gets "inspired" by them is a gullible political zombie.

Mookie - your sounding a wee bit cynical! There is hope for ya yet! :salute:

[mookiemookie]

Mookie - your sounding a wee bit cynical! There is hope for ya yet! :salute:

I'm much more cynical and disillusioned with today's political machine than you all give me credit for. :arrgh!: :up:

Oh yeah...here's a funny from the RNC

http://i.imgur.com/P8kpY.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Not only is that funny - "Team R" owns its share of the blame for how that clock is running.

[August]

Oh yeah...here's a funny from the RNC

What Hap said but you gotta wonder at the Republicans lack of common sense in setting up a gotcha shot gift to the Dems like that. What's next, Romney going to a Halloween costume party thrown by the Press Corps dressed as a nazi?

Oh wait the GoP already tried that!

Rich Lott (R) third from left.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/joshua_green/wiking_resized.jpg

How dumb can one be?

[JU_88]

Eh, didn't Romney tell anti-abortion folks he was pro-life and pro abortion folks he was pro choice?, I believe there is video proof of this on Youtube.... Anyhow hes a serial flip-flopper, I couldnt guess what he would actually do as president - but it will be probably be nothing new, hes not exactly worlds apart from Obama on paper. The Pre Election debates between those two will be pretty boring methinks. Lots of petty hair splitting I reckon.
What a leader says while he is campaigning and what he says while in power are often two different things anyway. Im amazed we still take anyones campaign promises seriously at all.

[1480]

Eh, didn't Romney tell anti-abortion folks he was pro-life and pro abortion folks he was pro choice?, I believe there is video proof of this on Youtube.... Anyhow hes a serial flip-flopper, I couldnt guess what he would actually do as president - but it will be probably be nothing new, hes not exactly worlds apart from Obama on paper. The Pre Election debates between those two will be pretty boring methinks. Lots of petty hair splitting I reckon.
What a leader says while he is campaigning and what he says while in power are often two different things anyway. Im amazed we still take anyones campaign promises seriously at all.


And BHO is not a wind sock......:har:

[Blood_splat]

The Real Convention Is at Cracker Bay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeO9c-NyYCQ&feature=g-u-u)

[Sledgehammer427]

Another Illinoisan chiming in,
And I will be the first to admit that I haven't been following this whole "election" thing as close as I probably should be. And I apologize for stating the obvious, as I'm sure I will quite often

I believe the republican party made a terrible choice in Nominating Romney, I think Ron Paul would have been a better choice, IMHO.
I also hold my opinion that Washington DC has lost track of the ideology this country is built around, which is that everyone should have the freedom to do what they want with their lives, religiously, physically, otherwise, While the Government simply assures that we can all live together harmoniously through laws designed to keep things cohesive and from getting out of control.
I think we've lost track of the whole "separation of church and state" thing that our forefathers pushed to have in this country. It is not a governors, politicians, or president's place to say "well, God doesn't want people to get abortions, so I'm going to outlaw them entirely"
Thats like the president banning junk food because he's on a diet. It's not fair to the people who aren't on a diet and, while it's fair to (hypothetically) the majority of the country too because they are on diets, it is removing a deserved freedom from those that aren't dieting.
the same example can go for homosexuality, as well.

I'm not a fan of Obama, and I'm definitely not a fan of Romney (I look at their views on foreign policy and Romney might as well be shooting himself in the foot)

While I agree that the "lesser of two evils" tack isn't a good one, I've grown weary of our political system here, and I think we should just...well, for lack of a better word, purge the current house, senate, and everything else and start fresh with people who will friggin' work together, no matter their differences in life, and for chrissakes keep the churches out of it.

[Tribesman]

I think we've lost track of the whole "separation of church and state" thing that our forefathers pushed to have in this country.
In regards to the whole establishment disestablishment thing, I don't think its losing track so much as simply that a lot of people even understand it or why it exists.
Many of these people tend to have it as "seperation of church and state(unless its my version of church and state)".
Which of course comes right to the very reason why the seperation of church and state was put there and the very long line of historical examples of why it must be seperate.

[the_tyrant]

Hey, you wanna do a writeup on your opinion of the thing mate?

I wanna see how the "rank and file" feel, not the usual "hardcore republican" blogs, or the "mainstream" media

[Tchocky]

Ha! I enjoyed this.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/best-they-could-get-accepts-republican-nomination,29383/

[Bubblehead1980]

I was not really looking to start a debate, was asking if anyone from subsim was there.This was my first convention was an adult really, it was a great time, definitely worth missing a few classes.

[eddie]

Have to say Clint Eastwood put on quite a show.

[Takeda Shingen]

Have to say Clint Eastwood put on quite a show.

I adore Clint, but that was embarrasing. However, what I found the most interesting is the complaints that politics have become too formulaic and scripted. Now we see why that is the case.

[mookiemookie]

Ever notice that when Hollywood types make their liberal leanings known, they're skewered mercilessly and told to shut the hell up and (sing/act/dance/directing films), but when Eastwood does it, he's the toast of the Republican Party?

Eastwood should shut the hell up and go back to acting and directing. As should Clooney. And on and on.

[eddie]

I was not really looking to start a debate, was asking if anyone from subsim was there.This was my first convention was an adult really, it was a great time, definitely worth missing a few classes.

I'm glad you had a great time! Why don't you lets us know your thoughts of the whole process, I've never been to a Convention like that myself.

[August]

Ever notice that when Hollywood types make their liberal leanings known, they're skewered mercilessly and told to shut the hell up and (sing/act/dance/directing films), but when Eastwood does it, he's the toast of the Republican Party?

You got to counter the merciless activism of liberal icon Sean Penn somehow. Who better than Dirty Harry? :)

[Tribesman]

I adore Clint, but that was embarrasing.
It was a shame, you would have thought an actor could give a better performance.
Unless of course he was aiming at playing a role of "confused rambling old man who got lost on the day trip from the care home"

[Penguin]

Ever notice that when Hollywood types make their liberal leanings known, they're skewered mercilessly and told to shut the hell up and (sing/act/dance/directing films), but when Eastwood does it, he's the toast of the Republican Party?


The odd thing is this coming from a party which idolizes a mediocre actor who turned out to be an even worse president.


Eastwood should shut the hell up and go back to acting and directing. As should Clooney. And on and on.
Fame should never be a criteria to give somebody's opinion less or more weight, they should be judged by the words they utter.
I am also often pissed off by the intellectual diarherra that many celebs state, however they have the same right to state their opinion as an accountant or a plumber (if the latter doesn't go by the name Joe ;))

[Rilder]

Unless of course he was aiming at playing a role of "confused rambling old man who got lost on the day trip from the care home"

So basically the role of an average republican? :O:






The content in this post is not meant to be taken seriously, it is a joke. :V

[soopaman2]

It was a shame, you would have thought an actor could give a better performance.
Unless of course he was aiming at playing a role of "confused rambling old man who got lost on the day trip from the care home"

It kinda made me cringe, as I am a huge fan.

It almost felt like when I learned Santa wasn't real. (sometime last year)

Not a disrespect towards Clint, as I have loved everything he has from his "spaghetti western" days to his writer director days.

If I didn't know any better, I would say the Elephants were trying to drive this election into the ground to make it easier for Chris Christie to win in 2016. I am looking for a reason to vote republican, but my write in for Lady Gaga I always joked about still stands.:hmph:

[Tribesman]

Fame should never be a criteria to give somebody's opinion less or more weight, they should be judged by the words they utter.
Fame???????? don't you mean FAME death camps

[CaptainHaplo]

It kinda made me cringe, as I am a huge fan.

It almost felt like when I learned Santa wasn't real. (sometime last year)

Not a disrespect towards Clint, as I have loved everything he has from his "spaghetti western" days to his writer director days.

If I didn't know any better, I would say the Elephants were trying to drive this election into the ground to make it easier for Chris Christie to win in 2016. I am looking for a reason to vote republican, but my write in for Lady Gaga I always joked about still stands.:hmph:

Soopa - you can always consider writing in my name......

I say that honestly - but before you do, ask me about issues (I won't say a word about the previous administration's successes or failures). I will give you my honest view on what I think we as a nation need to do on each.