Romney was Better than Obama

[stahrgazer]

Okay, I'll start using pro-abortion or pro-death or anti-life then. That is more accurate.

Nope, you're being more inaccurate again. As I already said, someone can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice (woman chooses, using whichever God she chooses to believe in to help make the choice) but not pro-abortion, and not anti-life. "Life" should include the woman's life, and to me, "life" means much more than breathing, it's about quality of life as well.

[stahrgazer]

Romney was not a quick fix, but he wasn't intentionally trying to bankrupt the USA either

True, that's what Reagan did, in order to outspend the Soviets and get the Berlin wall torn down.

[stahrgazer]

If you (and the media) is going to criticize Romney for lack of details, why was there no criticism of Obama?

Because Romney gave "details" by claiming that his plan would create 12 million new jobs, which cannot be true if he hadn't picked numbers - and out of his own words, he did not pick the numbers. If he doesn't know what the numbers need to be to create 12 million jobs, he should not have claimed "12 million new jobs," as part of his campaign. A slim majority of Americans saw thru his bogus claims.

Obama, on the other hand, said from the start, "this is going to be painful before it gets better, and I'll have to do some spending to hold us together until then," and that has been accurate. He has also continually, from the first, maintained that to work the deficit requires a balance between spending cuts and raised taxes. His plan to do that was to include incentives to businesses to help reduce unemployment by way of tax deductions for U.S. jobs created. In other words, any "penalties" would be toward those who want to create jobs anywhere but the US. No numbers on "jobs created" from his plan because it relies on businesses to wish to take advantage of the relief from the tax increases that so far, Congress has refused to budge on.

and again, OBAMA isn't the one who made the numbers a campaign claim, Romney is.

Now, you made the point that there is no direct funding for abortions. Let's assume that's correct. Let's say Planned Parenthood collects $100, $40 of which is from the government and $60 of which is from some other revenue stream. The $60 it gets from some other revenue stream is used to fund abortions. The $40 is not. But the $60 is indirectly funding the abortions. So, it's a problem.

Going with your idea of funding, if Cuban Americans send money to family still in Cuba, they're indirectly funding Communism and that's a problem, so we shouldn't let them send money to their families. I guess similarly, you think we shouldn't give money for milk for babies because the mother could get funds from other sources that she'll use for things that aren't milk which means you'd be indirectly funding those other things that SHE chooses, so that's all wrong.

By the way, in this part of Florida, Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions; it's all medical screening like pap smears, less expensive contraception, or - when the contraception fails - pregnancy and family counseling.

As for whether Roe v. Wade is at risk... I'm not willing to risk it.

[thegreekdog]

If you (and the media) is going to criticize Romney for lack of details, why was there no criticism of Obama?

Because Romney gave "details" by claiming that his plan would create 12 million new jobs, which cannot be true if he hadn't picked numbers - and out of his own words, he did not pick the numbers. If he doesn't know what the numbers need to be to create 12 million jobs, he should not have claimed "12 million new jobs," as part of his campaign. A slim majority of Americans saw thru his bogus claims.

Obama, on the other hand, said from the start, "this is going to be painful before it gets better, and I'll have to do some spending to hold us together until then," and that has been accurate. He has also continually, from the first, maintained that to work the deficit requires a balance between spending cuts and raised taxes. His plan to do that was to include incentives to businesses to help reduce unemployment by way of tax deductions for U.S. jobs created. In other words, any "penalties" would be toward those who want to create jobs anywhere but the US. No numbers on "jobs created" from his plan because it relies on businesses to wish to take advantage of the relief from the tax increases that so far, Congress has refused to budge on.

and again, OBAMA isn't the one who made the numbers a campaign claim, Romney is.

Now, you made the point that there is no direct funding for abortions. Let's assume that's correct. Let's say Planned Parenthood collects $100, $40 of which is from the government and $60 of which is from some other revenue stream. The $60 it gets from some other revenue stream is used to fund abortions. The $40 is not. But the $60 is indirectly funding the abortions. So, it's a problem.

Going with your idea of funding, if Cuban Americans send money to family still in Cuba, they're indirectly funding Communism and that's a problem, so we shouldn't let them send money to their families. I guess similarly, you think we shouldn't give money for milk for babies because the mother could get funds from other sources that she'll use for things that aren't milk which means you'd be indirectly funding those other things that SHE chooses, so that's all wrong.

By the way, in this part of Florida, Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions; it's all medical screening like pap smears, less expensive contraception, or - when the contraception fails - pregnancy and family counseling.

As for whether Roe v. Wade is at risk... I'm not willing to risk it.

I know you claim you aren't partisan, but this is as partisan as it gets. You're literally searching for excuses and you've backed off of your "Obama provided details" claim.

I have no problem if you voted for Obama if you have a good reason for doing so. You had a few good reasons and that should be enough, but the rest of these things are simply not true statements; it's like I'm reading an Obama campaign email (of which I received hundreds).

[Phatscotty]

Romney was not a quick fix, but he wasn't intentionally trying to bankrupt the USA either

True, that's what Reagan did, in order to outspend the Soviets and get the Berlin wall torn down.

that's just adorable....

[Timminz]

Maybe I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney seems to be the most mocked loser ever.

http://www.disappearingromney.com

[AndyDufresne]

Maybe I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney seems to be the most mocked loser ever.

http://www.disappearingromney.com

This may simply be because of the internet, and everyone wanting to share their opinion on everything, and the infotainment media we have nowadays, and less to do with the actual candidate. But it could also be Romney.


--Andy

[stahrgazer]

I know you claim you aren't partisan, but this is as partisan as it gets. You're literally searching for excuses and you've backed off of your "Obama provided details" claim.

I have no problem if you voted for Obama if you have a good reason for doing so. You had a few good reasons and that should be enough, but the rest of these things are simply not true statements; it's like I'm reading an Obama campaign email (of which I received hundreds).

I never stated anything about whether I'm partisan or non-partisan. What does the term mean to you? I'm somewhat conservative, but not when it means, "capitalism without ethics," and not when it means, "my religion trumps women's freedom." The turns my (Republican) party has taken sometimes disgust me. Some of what the Demo party does sometimes disgust me too.

Meanwhile, I'm not searching for excuses at all, I'm refuting your ridiculous twists of what I said as you come up with them.

I never said Obama published his numbers, I said he had them; and later I specified they were always available in his budget. I also maintained all through this that my problem with Romney is, Romney kept claiming a specific number of (12 million) jobs his "plan" would create, yet Romney never had the numbers to back that up. I believe Mitt's LIES, trying to claim a non-existent analysis confirms a specific number of jobs that would end unemployment in the U.S., are worse than your concern with not personally reviewing Obama's budgets. Obama's plan, however, is very simply stated: raise taxes on the types of businesses that are sending jobs overseas; ask those who can afford it to pay a little more taxes from their personal wealth because our country is hurting and so are so many of its people right now; and give tax incentives (deductions) to companies that are creating jobs within the United States because those jobs are needed to help us out of this bind.

I actually had hoped not to vote for Obama, mainly because I disliked his use of executive order to stop border patrols from prosecuting and returning, illegal aliens. My thinking is, if we need immigration law reforms, then reform them, but don't stop the folks from doing the jobs we pay them to do: enforce the laws as they exist.

Alas, this year, just like last pres campaign, my party picked a-holes.
Prior election: McCain, mainly just too old and grumpy - albeit, a grumpy old man with a fairly nice history; but obviously going a tad senile for thinking we'd go for his vicious pitbull "appeal to teenie boppers and muscle-t men" Sarah vp pick - as well as needing to retire if he thought that his demeanor in the debates was appropriate (his reference to Obama as "That one!" really made me grind my teeth and while not many spoke of it, I do believe his nastiness back then was far worse than what we saw in this year's debates.)

This election's Romney, just too much the chameleon who'll say what he thinks he needs to say to win, whether he means it or not, whether it makes sense or not, and whether we see through it or not. He ran his campaign like his Bain Capital runs its ventures: make promises of all sorts to folks, when the real "promise" was always to himself and his investors. Called on facts that didn't add up frequently he frequently just ignored the questions. Essentially, a shyster; and one that was far too willing to go to the extreme right because that's where his investors wanted him, as shown by his extremist vp pick, Ryan, who thinks his religious principles should trump a woman's choice of which religious faith, if any, will guide her reproductive decisions. Maybe she shouldn't have sex, but not all women who get "unintentionally" pregnant have indiscriminate sex.

Bottom line, I voted for Obama, twice, because I believed he was the most candid and viable representative of the choices I was given - doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred a better choice.

[notyou2]

Maybe I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney seems to be the most mocked loser ever.

http://www.disappearingromney.com

This may simply be because of the internet, and everyone wanting to share their opinion on everything, and the infotainment media we have nowadays, and less to do with the actual candidate. But it could also be Romney.


--Andy

The correct spelling is infantainment.

[saxitoxin]

Obama Formally Turns Over the Government to Committee of CEOs

Two dozen business leaders, including the chief executives of major U.S. corporations such as Ford, IBM and Wal-Mart, will meet President Barack Obama to discuss how to control the federal deficit, said the White House on Monday.

Business executives invited to meet the president on Wednesday were Mark Bertolini of Aetna Inc, Ursula Burns of Xerox Corp, Kenneth Chenault of American Express Co, David Cote of Honeywell International Inc, Michael Duke of Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric Co, Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical Co, Robert McDonald of Procter & Gamble Co, Alan Mulally of Ford Motor Co, Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo Inc, Ginni Rometty of IBM, and John Watson of Chevron Corp.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... me=topNews

Wal-Mart knows how to get the most out of people for the least amount of money. Good thinking by Obama to put Social Security in their hands.

(Good thing Romney wasn't elected. It would suck if corporations ran America. We really dodged a bullet there.)

[Dukasaur]

Obama Formally Turns Over the Government to Committee of CEOs

Two dozen business leaders, including the chief executives of major U.S. corporations such as Ford, IBM and Wal-Mart, will meet President Barack Obama to discuss how to control the federal deficit, said the White House on Monday.

Business executives invited to meet the president on Wednesday were Mark Bertolini of Aetna Inc, Ursula Burns of Xerox Corp, Kenneth Chenault of American Express Co, David Cote of Honeywell International Inc, Michael Duke of Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric Co, Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical Co, Robert McDonald of Procter & Gamble Co, Alan Mulally of Ford Motor Co, Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo Inc, Ginni Rometty of IBM, and John Watson of Chevron Corp.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... me=topNews

Wal-Mart knows how to get the most out of people for the least amount of money. Good thinking by Obama to put Social Security in their hands.

(Good thing Romney wasn't elected. It would suck if corporations ran America. We really dodged a bullet there.)

Yeah, it's a relief that Obama is such a committed Marxist. I'm sure he'll have the corporate nabobs sent to a re-education camp.

[saxitoxin]

Obama Unveils 2nd Term Environmental Program: "We'll Beat the Crap out of Environmentalists"

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar threatened to punch a reporter on a recent trip to Colorado, according to witnesses.

Dave Philipps, a reporter for the Colorado Springs Gazette, tried to ask Salazar about his appointments to the Bureau of Land Management and the wild horse population in the state. Specifically, Philipps had questions about the government's relationship with a wild horse buyer who allegedly sold more than 1,700 horses to Mexican slaughterhouses.

Ginger Kathrens, executive director of the Cloud Foundation, witnessed the exchange between Salazar and a reporter. Her organization put out a release cataloging the exchange and blasting Salazar for his treatment of the press.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 49402.html

[oVo]

Bait & Switch... Saxi, that's another Headline that doesn't match the contents.
Which is similar to much campaign rhetoric.

[thegreekdog]

I know you claim you aren't partisan, but this is as partisan as it gets. You're literally searching for excuses and you've backed off of your "Obama provided details" claim.

I have no problem if you voted for Obama if you have a good reason for doing so. You had a few good reasons and that should be enough, but the rest of these things are simply not true statements; it's like I'm reading an Obama campaign email (of which I received hundreds).

I never stated anything about whether I'm partisan or non-partisan. What does the term mean to you? I'm somewhat conservative, but not when it means, "capitalism without ethics," and not when it means, "my religion trumps women's freedom." The turns my (Republican) party has taken sometimes disgust me. Some of what the Demo party does sometimes disgust me too.

Meanwhile, I'm not searching for excuses at all, I'm refuting your ridiculous twists of what I said as you come up with them.

I never said Obama published his numbers, I said he had them; and later I specified they were always available in his budget. I also maintained all through this that my problem with Romney is, Romney kept claiming a specific number of (12 million) jobs his "plan" would create, yet Romney never had the numbers to back that up. I believe Mitt's LIES, trying to claim a non-existent analysis confirms a specific number of jobs that would end unemployment in the U.S., are worse than your concern with not personally reviewing Obama's budgets. Obama's plan, however, is very simply stated: raise taxes on the types of businesses that are sending jobs overseas; ask those who can afford it to pay a little more taxes from their personal wealth because our country is hurting and so are so many of its people right now; and give tax incentives (deductions) to companies that are creating jobs within the United States because those jobs are needed to help us out of this bind.

I actually had hoped not to vote for Obama, mainly because I disliked his use of executive order to stop border patrols from prosecuting and returning, illegal aliens. My thinking is, if we need immigration law reforms, then reform them, but don't stop the folks from doing the jobs we pay them to do: enforce the laws as they exist.

Alas, this year, just like last pres campaign, my party picked a-holes.
Prior election: McCain, mainly just too old and grumpy - albeit, a grumpy old man with a fairly nice history; but obviously going a tad senile for thinking we'd go for his vicious pitbull "appeal to teenie boppers and muscle-t men" Sarah vp pick - as well as needing to retire if he thought that his demeanor in the debates was appropriate (his reference to Obama as "That one!" really made me grind my teeth and while not many spoke of it, I do believe his nastiness back then was far worse than what we saw in this year's debates.)

This election's Romney, just too much the chameleon who'll say what he thinks he needs to say to win, whether he means it or not, whether it makes sense or not, and whether we see through it or not. He ran his campaign like his Bain Capital runs its ventures: make promises of all sorts to folks, when the real "promise" was always to himself and his investors. Called on facts that didn't add up frequently he frequently just ignored the questions. Essentially, a shyster; and one that was far too willing to go to the extreme right because that's where his investors wanted him, as shown by his extremist vp pick, Ryan, who thinks his religious principles should trump a woman's choice of which religious faith, if any, will guide her reproductive decisions. Maybe she shouldn't have sex, but not all women who get "unintentionally" pregnant have indiscriminate sex.

Bottom line, I voted for Obama, twice, because I believed he was the most candid and viable representative of the choices I was given - doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred a better choice.

See my response in the other thread for more details. I didn't vote for Romney, mostly because he was too conservative for me socially and I was not convinced he was conservative enough fiscally. So I have no skin in this game. Based on what you've said so far, you should have either voted for Obama (based on your seemingly blind worship of him as a good Reagan Republican) or Gary Johnson (if you are a small government person). I believe you are a statist with respect to economics and a libertarian with respect to social issues. This puts you squarely in the Democratic Party and your parroting of rhetoric makes sense.

[stahrgazer]

Based on what you've said so far, you should have either voted for Obama (based on your seemingly blind worship of him as a good Reagan Republican) or Gary Johnson (if you are a small government person). I believe you are a statist with respect to economics and a libertarian with respect to social issues. This puts you squarely in the Democratic Party and your parroting of rhetoric makes sense.

1) I'm not blind
2) I'm not parroting rhetoric, I did my own data searches.
3) Since I almost never listen to anything but Republican talk show hosts, I never heard any Democratic rhetoric to parrot unless it was during the debates.
4) I've found a few, "How Dem are you," and "How Repub are you" quizzes on various sites. When I take them, I'm squarely in the middle, but if I change my pro-choice stance to anti-choice, I'm squarely Republican.

[Timminz]

[thegreekdog]

Based on what you've said so far, you should have either voted for Obama (based on your seemingly blind worship of him as a good Reagan Republican) or Gary Johnson (if you are a small government person). I believe you are a statist with respect to economics and a libertarian with respect to social issues. This puts you squarely in the Democratic Party and your parroting of rhetoric makes sense.

1) I'm not blind
2) I'm not parroting rhetoric, I did my own data searches.
3) Since I almost never listen to anything but Republican talk show hosts, I never heard any Democratic rhetoric to parrot unless it was during the debates.
4) I've found a few, "How Dem are you," and "How Repub are you" quizzes on various sites. When I take them, I'm squarely in the middle, but if I change my pro-choice stance to anti-choice, I'm squarely Republican.

I think you're confused. I've rarely found such an ardent Obama and Democrat supporter on this thread.

And you shouldn't listen to Republican talk show hosts. They regularly lie and spin.

[stahrgazer]

I think you're confused. I've rarely found such an ardent Obama and Democrat supporter on this thread.

Obama, yes. Demo's in general, no.

And you shouldn't listen to Republican talk show hosts. They regularly lie and spin.

Yes, they do.

[saxitoxin]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

[Phatscotty]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

If you are reporting that John Boehner is more anti-Tea Party than Liberals are, and just as sleazy, that isn't news to me

[saxitoxin]

The vote-for-Romney-now-but-takeover-Congress strategy takes another hit as Senator Jim DeMint abruptly resigns from the Senate this morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-s ... p-17893372

[Phatscotty]

The vote-for-Romney-now-but-takeover-Congress strategy takes another hit as Senator Jim DeMint abruptly resigns from the Senate this morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-s ... p-17893372

If Romney had won, Demint would probably stick around to hold Romney's feet to the fire

[saxitoxin]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

If you are reporting that John Boehner is more anti-Tea Party than Liberals are, and just as sleazy, that isn't news to me

Boehner is a pragmatist; he does what he knows he can get away with - after the incident at the GOP convention he saw that the Tea Party still turned-out to vote for Romney anyway. Therefore, he knew he could castrate their remaining members of Congress without any repercussions. And, as predicted in this thread a few months ago, he did.

Had Romney lost after a groundswell of opposition from the Tea Party instead of losing with the meek and dutiful support of the Tea Party, the Knight of the Long Knives wouldn't have happened. Now it's just a mop-up operation for Bohener - round-up the remnants, close this chapter and move on with business as usual. The Tea Party takes its place on the shelf next to Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and John B. Anderson as just another, once-a-decade, insurgent flare-up that the Major Parties crush.

[Phatscotty]

No way! I disagree! There is a quasi-dimension here that is not being accounted for!

Sure, the fiscal wing mostly turned out, the Social wing somewhat sat it out, and the Liberty wing was AWOL. But most important were the Independents. roughly 10 million less people voted this time than in 2008, and (correct me if I am wrong) but Mitt Romney got more votes than John Mccain did, or else it was very close. That said, f*ck John Boehner AND Woodrow Wilson.

The news you reported does trouble me, but I don't know why you would expect me or us to give up or admit defeat. We will find another way, and the Campaign for Liberty will continue to grow.

on Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.

Ron Paul would have crushed Obama

Rand Paul
The House leaders chose to punish some of their more conservative members for voting for a budget that balanced in the short term and against one that took 28 years to balance. For standing up for fiscal sanity, they were removed from the budget committee. I object to this action, and it sends the wrong message both to conservative members and to the American taxpayer.

[Timminz]

Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.