Romney to stop mentioning ex-Navy SEAL in speeches

[August]

I did like this:

Glen Doherty’s sister, Kate Quigley, had a different take on Romney’s words. ”It was nice what he said,” she told she told WCVB. “Being an American hero is bipartisan.”

[Armistead]

I hope Romney wins, it will assure a victory for Hillary next go round...

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

The republicans dug their own grave and had the courtesy to fill most of it up. The republicans have said and done a multitude worse than the democrats ever have.

If your going to make an accusation, you really need to offer some specifics and evidence of it. Otherwise it simply is a partisan attack without basis.

Not so convenient how the economy, in which the housing industry was already starting to topple from the previous 8 years, fell all on Obama, who now had to cleanup what wall street had done under the Bush administration.

"NOW had to cleanup"? funny - he has had 4 years and nothing to show for it - otherwise he would be touting how much the economy has improved.

Wall street, the same people who caused both this recession and the great depression, are the same "people" who republicans think should be almost totally let free to stomp on the public at will.

Again - your not only misrepresenting party policy, your also grossly generalizing about any and all Republicans.

Theres a difference between wanting equal opportunity and wanting everyone to share.

Somethins we agree on then - too bad your guy doesn't since all he can tallk about is everyone's "fair share" and not their "fair opportunity". Interesting, isn't it?

In case you forgot your history lessons, Monopolies kept the majority of the public on financial chains. Denying that they cant do so today is ridiculous.

And somehow you don't see how a monolithic, all encompassing government can do the same? Things like, oh - say a monopoly on health care, for example......

The Oil companies can, right now, price gouge without consequence. 5 Dollars a gallon because the oil companies believe in fairy tale oil futures and try to write it off because of one insignificant oil rig fire.

You really should not have gone here... Note - you said "RIGHT NOW". Right now as in 4 years after the "Savior" Obama has been in office - with his first two years of total congressional control to boot. Compared to the day he took office, Gas prices on average have more than doubled. So if "big, evil oil" can (and apparently has) do/done this "RIGHT NOW" - who is responsible for that?

Also - while I get you don't like "big company X", show me where this is occuring and then answer why Obama has not stopped it. Next, show me an "insignificant" oil rig fire/spill. Finally, explain why it is that your so against "big oil" when government makes more moneyoff every gallon of gas than the company that makes it. Yet somehow it never becomes "evil, big government" - does is?

Three major food companies dominate the food market. Might as well be monopolies, they bought out almost all competitors a long time ago. If you want to open your own farm, good luck trying to sell anything, the food giants will most likely crush your attempt. This isnt equal opportunity.

Again - no citation of evidence given. Let's assume your right though. Where has your glorious leader been on this issue? Oh - absently silent as he has been on anything else. Now suddenly this and other things are "major issues" - when he needs your blind following to vote for him. You simply refuse to see that.

This is monopolies. This is financial chains covered in a false sense of freedom. Less government interference in business regulation? HAHAHA! Good luck trying to live your american dream, pal.

How about less government interference in personal life? Like not telling me what I HAVE to buy. Or trying to get me to buy the electric car he wants me to have - from Government Motors.

So for the past 4 years, Republicans have been trying to make health insurance completely dominated by the insurance companies, who pick and choose who they want to cover based on outrageous grounds.

Which is why the writing of the ACA was done behind closed doors - with "big insurance" included, right?

So republicans are not only trying to "blame Obama" for this crisis and his inability to fix everything the republicans left him in 4 years, and for trying to get healthcare to people who cant afford it, while proposing absurd solutions to their views on obamacare that would only further the uninsured rates.

So repealing "Obamacare" and returning to the "old way" of doing thins would increase the number of uninsured compared to what it was? Ok - again no citation - but I agree it would. The thing is - you don't see why it would. It's because there are 23 Million more unemployed and underemployed that can't afford health insurance becase... THEY CAN'T FIND DECENT JOBS IN THE OBAMA ECONOMY! More people working means more people insured. But you can't make that connection, can you?

Republicans believe that "people should have the right to choose", except when it comes to their bodies and what they want to do with it.

I would ask if you generalize much, but the answer is obvious. Republicans and Democrats both believe in "the right to choose" - the difference is that the Republicans believe you have the right to choose for yourself - and the Democrats (since you want to generalize, I will too) want to choose who gets what, how they get it - and who pays for it.

See, generalizations in politics simply are not always accurate....

Romney talks about putting the squeeze on China but has been a proponent of further export of jobs to China. Romney tries to associate with the "average Joe" whilst being a FILTHY rich millionaire who hides his money offshore so he wont get taxed.

So promoting competition is bad... Oh - and like Obama isn't rich? Debbie Wasserman Shultz has the same type of offshore accounts as Romney - but because of the letter beside her name, that isn't a problem, is it? Romney tries to associate with the "average Joe" - your guy is too busy to meet with allies so that he can entertain members of the Muslim Brotherhood and hang out on Letterman or the view....

Romney wants to lower the taxes on the rich FURTHER than they already have, YET DOESNT WANT TO DO THE SAME FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS OR THE LOWER INCOME EARNERS, all to "promote job creation", when corporations have NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD and still refuse to hire more people.

Boy your in lala land with this one. Cutting tax rates across the board is a tax cut for everyone. Eliminating loophole impacts the rich more than the middle class. So the rich end up with about the same total tax, and the middle class gets a cut. Facts are just beyond you, aren't they?

Hes a bumbling fool when it comes to foreign policy. He believes that cutting ANYTHING (including inefficient projects that could easily be cut in turn for more equipment for the troops) military is absolutely detrimental to security but HEY, lets cut funding for planned parenthood and PBS.

Actually - lets cut all three. I don't care for his stance on blind military spending - but you really call Romney a fool when it comes to foreign policy, when Obama has seen the Middle East go from semi-stable to now being in process of being consumed by militant Islam and a nuclear Iran.... Yea ok. Even Obama is avoiding the discussion of libya. You know -where 4 Americans died and the State Department had warning after warning and did nothing - and then lied to the American public to try and make it about some anti-islamic movie instead of their own screw up? Yea - he is really successful when our enemies do not fear us - and our allies don't trust us.

And while its been replayed 1000 times already, he wrote off 47% of Americans as freeloaders, and you simply cant forget that kind of thing or brush it off as stupid banter.

Ah - don't pay attention to my guy's failures - pay attention to one taken out of context statement by the guy I don't like. Factually - 47% of people get more than they put regarding government programs and taxes. The likelyhood of people in that category voting for a guy who wants to end the free ride on government isn't very high. But demonize, that is all you have.....

His VP's "Budget plan" is Swiss cheese; a candle in the wind that cant hold its own.

Ah - so 1.2 Trillion in debt, 4 years in a row - is a candle we can just keep on burning then. Of course - no citation of your argument - just a blanket statement with no support....

"In the case of legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down" WHAT!!?!?
And they want to run for president. HAH!

You prove my point. You quote someone running for a congressional seat and try to act like the Presidential Candidate was the one that said it. Dishonest much? If the party supported the guy (who admitted he was wrong - and the medical community DID in fact at one time teach that his statement was correct), why did they pull their money? Oh - another fact convienently missed in your tirade.

So throughout we have generalizations, accusations with no evidence, attacks on a candidate with factual but taken out of context statements, and not one bit of defense of the record that Obama has created for 4 years.

Like I said - 23 Million unemployed or underemployed. Americans killed in the Middle East. 5 Trillion in new debt in 4 years while having the worst "recovery" in history.

Obama (and CaptainMatt1) want to talk Big Bird and baseless attacks.

I still think I know who is going to win this election.....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Sure we will. We always win. Our worst president ever was still a win.

Touché, but when you reach the situation, as we have here, when neither side are particularly worthy of the voting system, then it does make you question how far detached the political system has become from the public that it is supposed to serve.
Not that I recommend drastic change, after all, the system may have its faults but it's still better than many others, but I think those in it need a reminder of who they are supposed to be serving.

[mookiemookie]

I guess this is the thread where we repeat discredited political talking points in a desperate attempt to make them true.

And know why people are talking about Big Bird? Because it's funny. It's funny to single out a line item that makes up 0.0000638687%* of the federal budget and use that as an example of how you're going to solve the country's debt problems. It's pathetic and shows how politicians are worthless ideologues.


*approximation

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I guess this is the thread where we repeat discredited political talking points in a desperate attempt to make them true.

And know why people are talking about Big Bird? Because it's funny. It's funny to single out a line item that makes up 0.0000638687%* of the federal budget and use that as an example of how you're going to solve the country's debt problems. It's pathetic and shows how politicians are worthless ideologues.


*approximation

Why must you distort what happened Mookie? Romney was asked a direct question on whether he would continue to fund NPR. He said he wouldn't. He never said, implied, or claimed that it would solve the country's debt problems.

[eddie]

Now Mitt wants the US to supply arms to the Syrian rebels,LOL He said this while speaking at VMI on Monday. Alright, lets get involved in another war in the ME!!!!!!!!!! Yayyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

[eddie]

As far as our debt goes, I don't suppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with it!?!

And heck yes, lets do away with regulating our banks, we can trust them can't we!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Sure we will. We always win. Our worst president ever was still a win.

Good point. The US will survive. Thanks may change back and forth though. I just can't get spun up over the doom sayers any more.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If your going to make an accusation, you really need to offer some specifics and evidence of it. Otherwise it simply is a partisan attack without basis.

reflecting on the statement today i may have been too harsh. boh parties have made their fair share of errors.

"NOW had to cleanup"? funny - he has had 4 years and nothing to show for it - otherwise he would be touting how much the economy has improved.

growth, while not as quickly as we want it, has come about in the past 4 years. unemployment is down to 7.8 percent and we are starting to see improvements.


Again - your not only misrepresenting party policy, your also grossly generalizing about any and all Republicans.

Sorry, i should have been more precise to refer to a majority of head republican officials.


Somethins we agree on then - too bad your guy doesn't since all he can tallk about is everyone's "fair share" and not their "fair opportunity". Interesting, isn't it?

Those top republicans who argue for the removal of social security are potentially destroying one of the most viable retirement options we have in place. people woh have been paying into SS for their whole lives expect it to be repayed in their old age when they need it the most. Are the same republicans arguing for its removal willing to pay back the american people for their SS contributions? Are the citizens who pay their taxes getting their fair share in repayment through infrastructure and government programs they've payed into?


And somehow you don't see how a monolithic, all encompassing government can do the same? Things like, oh - say a monopoly on health care, for example......

An all encompassing government that works for the people who made it sounds and is alot better than corporate monopolies who are run by the VERY few and do not work for the people's interests. The obamacare bill regulates insurance companies from denying healthcare on the grounds of pre-existing conditions and insurance limitations so that people who have pre-existing conditions can FINALLY buy what they desperately need. Private insurance companies have a near monopoly on healthcare coverage and have been denying people automatically for pre-existing conditions. These are Americans who are dying because they cant afford healthcare and no one is willing to take their money. This is their lives at risk.


You really should not have gone here... Note - you said "RIGHT NOW". Right now as in 4 years after the "Savior" Obama has been in office - with his first two years of total congressional control to boot. Compared to the day he took office, Gas prices on average have more than doubled. So if "big, evil oil" can (and apparently has) do/done this "RIGHT NOW" - who is responsible for that?

The oil companies. Obama has no control over gas prices. No president does. Anyone who says they can is lying (at least now, legislation would have to be passed). The Oil companies have freedom to set prices to outrageously high levels and the president cant do anything to stop it. Big evil oil is an extremely fitting term, they do the same thing every single year and no one in our government stops them. People cant stop buying gas. Without gas, this country would stop dead. Oil companies absolutely have a monopoly on oil and oil is the only commodity not considered to follow supply and demand. These are necessities, not luxuries. regulation should be the most stiff with necessities than anything else, these corporate monoliths have total control over gas, food, water, electricity, imagine how long this country would hold together if oil was 10 dollars a gallon and beef was 15 dollars a pound. If it wasnt for the weak gouging laws that would be a very real possibility.

Also - while I get you don't like "big company X", show me where this is occurring and then answer why Obama has not stopped it. Next, show me an "insignificant" oil rig fire/spill. Finally, explain why it is that your so against "big oil" when government makes more money off every gallon of gas than the company that makes it. Yet somehow it never becomes "evil, big government" - does is?

Oil companies have NEVER had it so good. Their future is assured. Obama cant stop it because its not in his jurisdiction. He hasnt the ability to do so. This isnt a dictatorship, and never has been, and never will be. The plant that became engulfed in flames in northern California earlier this year produced quite a bit of oil in the region but overall is not very significant to supply. No evidence is apparent, but its funny how these fires happen every year or two like clockwork.

Again - no citation of evidence given. Let's assume your right though. Where has your glorious leader been on this issue? Oh - absently silent as he has been on anything else. Now suddenly this and other things are "major issues" - when he needs your blind following to vote for him. You simply refuse to see that.

Kraft, Pepsi, Dole, General Mills, and Nestle own the very largest majority of the food market that isnt animal based. that's 5 companies that own not only their own sales but the sales of their subsidiary puppet companies. 4 other companies dominate animal based food companies, which make up the majority of food consumption. These companies are Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National beef. 9 giants that control the MASSIVE majority of food consumption. The meat packers are the worst, they keep farmers on a financial leash. Farmers end up having to sell to companies like Tyson to get their product sold because major food chains and grocery stores buy the majority of their products from the giants. Then, once in a contract, Farmers are required to get absolutely unnecessary upgrades and do things exactly how Tyson wants it. These expensive upgrades are put onto the farmers contract as debt and they get scheduled upgrades every few years to keep them in debt to the company. Obama cant regulate this, because he doesnt have the power to. And if he were to regulate it, top republicans would probably try to use that against him about how he wants this to be a dictatorship or something ridiculous like that.


How about less government interference in personal life? Like not telling me what I HAVE to buy. Or trying to get me to buy the electric car he wants me to have - from Government Motors.

The bit about fines for not being insured by healthcare dont force you to do anything. Its your choice whether or not to be insured, if not then you get taxed slightly. why? Because people get sick all the time. those who are uninsured by choice can't afford the bill and it gets passed onto the hospital or the taxpayers. The bill tries to remove the largest barriers of people who have the money for insurance simply not being accepted by any insurance companies, which means people have little reason not to get insured. No one mandates the buying of electric cars or hybrids either. You get rebates if you do. nothing if you dont. Only the seriously fuel inefficient cars get taxed, and not by very much.



Which is why the writing of the ACA was done behind closed doors - with "big insurance" included, right?


i didnt like that fact either. but as said recently in another thread, "self regulation is like no regulation at all". de-regulating all the of the key components that prevent exploitation might as well be support of these actions. Many top republicans want to go beyond repealing obamacare, they want even more de-regulation.


So repealing "Obamacare" and returning to the "old way" of doing thins would increase the number of uninsured compared to what it was? Ok - again no citation - but I agree it would. The thing is - you don't see why it would. It's because there are 23 Million more unemployed and underemployed that can't afford health insurance because... THEY CAN'T FIND DECENT JOBS IN THE OBAMA ECONOMY! More people working means more people insured. But you can't make that connection, can you?

Companies choose what salary they pay their workers (unless they want to pay them less than minimum wage). in general, average businesses havent increased wages very much for their average employees for years, while everything has gone up in price. all this has been caused by the crash, which was due to wall street's gambles. the fact that the unemployment skyrocketed wasnt due to Obama, it was due to outrageous gambles in the private sector. Unemployment is now down significantly since the crash. Obama's economy is slower than we want it to be but it is progressing decently. Dont forget the multitude of people who cant get insured because of rejection by insurance companies, not necessarily because of financial means.

I would ask if you generalize much, but the answer is obvious. Republicans and Democrats both believe in "the right to choose" - the difference is that the Republicans believe you have the right to choose for yourself - and the Democrats (since you want to generalize, I will too) want to choose who gets what, how they get it - and who pays for it.

See, generalizations in politics simply are not always accurate....

Granted the generalization doesnt apply to all republicans naturally, a large proportion of republicans do in fact want to ban or heavily regulate abortions. (some of the more extreme regulations that were suggested being that woman be forced to get vaginally probed among other absurd things).



So promoting competition is bad... Oh - and like Obama isn't rich? Debbie Wasserman Shultz has the same type of offshore accounts as Romney - but because of the letter beside her name, that isn't a problem, is it? Romney tries to associate with the "average Joe" - your guy is too busy to meet with allies so that he can entertain members of the Muslim Brotherhood and hang out on Letterman or the view....

Being rich is an ugly necessity for presidency. Anyone who cant afford to run a substantial campaign can expect to lose. The legal requirements are extremely lax but the practical and societal requirements single out a very small proportion of people who can be seriously considered as candidates. This also means that the wealthiest tend to run for president. Obama is considered rich yet knows where he came from and still believes in the interest of the middle class and the poor who make up the VERY large majority of this country. Romney has on several occasions shown his detachment from the majority of middle class americans and their interests.


Boy your in lala land with this one. Cutting tax rates across the board is a tax cut for everyone. Eliminating loophole impacts the rich more than the middle class. So the rich end up with about the same total tax, and the middle class gets a cut. Facts are just beyond you, aren't they?

Tax breaks for the wealthy hardly impact the middle class at all. The rich under the bush tax breaks never had it so good, but where are the jobs they said the tax breaks would create? The rich have never been so rich yet the number of jobs from corporate giants has been pitiful in comparison to what theyve been given. The republican heads sternly opposed the middle class tax cuts that Obama proposed.

Actually - lets cut all three. I don't care for his stance on blind military spending - but you really call Romney a fool when it comes to foreign policy, when Obama has seen the Middle East go from semi-stable to now being in process of being consumed by militant Islam and a nuclear Iran.... Yea ok. Even Obama is avoiding the discussion of libya. You know -where 4 Americans died and the State Department had warning after warning and did nothing - and then lied to the American public to try and make it about some anti-islamic movie instead of their own screw up? Yea - he is really successful when our enemies do not fear us - and our allies don't trust us.

Obama's policies have not brought about the changes seen in the middle east. Militant Islam has been growing for decades. The libyan embassy could have been more gaurded, indeed, but obama was not the cause of the riots. The extremists caused the riots, their drastic and idiotic response to the film was outragous. What are you expecting Obama to do, send us into another war in Iran? Sanctions have already been placed on iran and thats practically all we can do without military interference.

Ah - don't pay attention to my guy's failures - pay attention to one taken out of context statement by the guy I don't like. Factually - 47% of people get more than they put regarding government programs and taxes. The likelyhood of people in that category voting for a guy who wants to end the free ride on government isn't very high. But demonize, that is all you have.....

"My guys" failures are pale in comparison to what romney says hes going to do to this country. And Romney is elected to represent Americans in the executive branch, and writing off 47% of the population like that is hardly ever a good show of support for a very large portion of americans whatever they are doing.

Ah - so 1.2 Trillion in debt, 4 years in a row - is a candle we can just keep on burning then. Of course - no citation of your argument - just a blanket statement with no support....

1.2 trillion in debt that we had to spend on the ongoing war in Afghanistan and iraq that many felt needed to be dragged on for another 6 years because they wanted to train these weak, anti-Western governments to support themselves. We had to spend to bail out the industries that had collapsed as a result of 8 years under bush and the lax regulation of wall Street.


You prove my point. You quote someone running for a congressional seat and try to act like the Presidential Candidate was the one that said it. Dishonest much? If the party supported the guy (who admitted he was wrong - and the medical community DID in fact at one time teach that his statement was correct), why did they pull their money? Oh - another fact convienently missed in your tirade.

I did not misquote. That senator is a part of the republican party and isnt too far off the beaten path the Republican party has taken. Romney is a puppet, as evident by the fact that up until his move for election he was alot more moderate than he is now. The republicans are playing the strings, and by "they" i meant the republican party in its current state want to run for president seriously.

So throughout we have generalizations, accusations with no evidence, attacks on a candidate with factual but taken out of context statements, and not one bit of defense of the record that Obama has created for 4 years.

Like I said - 23 Million unemployed or underemployed. Americans killed in the Middle East. 5 Trillion in new debt in 4 years while having the worst "recovery" in history.

Obama (and CaptainMattJ) want to talk Big Bird and baseless attacks.

I still think I know who is going to win this election.....

Much of my rebuttal is in bold, in case you were wondering.

i will close with this. I have stated many times before that i dont like Obama very much. He cant stand up strong for his views and him and i disagree on quite a few topics. Id much rather have had Clinton, but she got overtaken by the wave of propaganda in the 2008 election of the fact that Obama is black. That doesnt mean i dont agree with obama on many issues, and that hes a terrible president, but he isnt the best and wont go down as a spectacular president.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Obama's policies have not brought about the changes seen in the middle east. Militant Islam has been growing for decades. The libyan embassy could have been more gaurded, indeed, but obama was not the cause of the riots. The extremists caused the riots, their drastic and idiotic response to the film was outragous

"could have been more guarded"?

There were no protestors at the Libyan embassy when the attack occurred. This was a pre-planned attack carried out on the anniversary of 9-11 by a terrorist group openly based in a country with little or no civil control. Such a huge security failure in what should have been a no-brainer situation cannot be dismissed so like it was just a little oops, especially since it has been revealed that the embassy had requested additional security forces prior to the attack but were refused.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

growth, while not as quickly as we want it, has come about in the past 4 years. unemployment is down to 7.8 percent and we are starting to see improvements.

Unemployment was 7.6 % when Obama took office. It is a questionable 7.8% now. Even if you believe that number (and most economists are calling it an anomoly) - its higher than it was. That isn't an improvement. When REAL unemployment - the total number of people able to work that are unemployed, underemployed or simply no longer in the work force (labor participation rate is VERY low) is around 14% - that isn't an improvement.

Starting to see improvement? Growth this year is anemic. It is slower than last year. Last year was slower than the year before. You call that improvement? There is a reason economists are continuing to discuss the real possibility of a "double dip" recession. California (8th largest economy) didn't even get its numbers in so the data will be severely readjusted higher soon enough. Look for it to be adjusted back to 8.0 or higher.

Slower and slower growth, fewer and fewer people working, more and more people on food stamps. Inarguable truths that you can't refute. If you see that as "improvement" - I hate to see what you would call paradise.

Those top republicans who argue for the removal of social security are potentially destroying one of the most viable retirement options we have in place.

Name me one "top" republican that has argued for the removal of social security. Just one. There isn't one. Make stuff up alot?

These are Americans who are dying because they cant afford healthcare and no one is willing to take their money. This is their lives at risk.

Bullcrap. If they can't afford healthcare - what money are you talking about? The money they don't have? If so - then why are they not already on the existing social net that exists for the poor? Oh wait - that's right - doing that wouldn't give the government more control over how EVERYONE gets care - it would mean they could only control health care for the poor.

Obama has no control over gas prices.

Again - hogwash. Thinks like stopping the Keystone XL pipeline have a direct impact on the availability and thus price of oil/gas. The administration not only stopped that project, but has restricted domestic oil production on federal land - meaning more supplies must come from overseas. All of which affect gas prices. I am not saying that the futures market doesn't have some impact, but to claim that the President (through his administration) has no control - is just an outright fallacy.

The extremists caused the riots, their drastic and idiotic response to the film was outragous.

Its already been proven that there was NO riot at all in Libya. Even the Intel community states so - and told the Administration that at the outset. Your pedalling a line that has already been demonstrated to be an outright lie put out by the administration.

I would go on - but I have to get to work. Otherwise I will be one more statistic.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Even if you believe that number (and most economists are calling it an anomoly)

This is news to me.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

This is news to me.

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and former CEO of GE Jack Welch for 2 off the top of my head.....
Holtz-Eakin stated it on CNN.

As for CA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...-either/57869/

And I stand corrected - Cali did get numbers in - just not accurate ones.

[mookiemookie]

So one economist and one not-economist say something, and that means "most economists" said it. Gotcha.

Remember when people would be happy that unemployment was going down because it meant that the country was doing better? I guess party politics has taken precedence over that.