OK. Enough is enough...

[JoeB131]

[

So did Obamacare....
You don't remember Obama had to bribe Senator Stupak to vote FOR the healthcare? Stupak was holding out because of the Abortion clause in it, he didn't want the taxpayers to be paying for this and he didn't believe in abortion. Obama promised to remove it if he voted for it.....so he did.

I never have heard if Obama kept his promise to remove it......anyone know???

Stupak was a Congressman, not a Senator.

 

[Sarah G]

I think Romney should make a deal with Obama... At exactly 12 noon on such and such a date, Romney will release all of his past tax filings and Obama will release all of his past college transcripts and the real copy of his birth certificate.

Not gonna happen. Romney is the one with the problem, not Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

I think Romney should make a deal with Obama... At exactly 12 noon on such and such a date, Romney will release all of his past tax filings and Obama will release all of his past college transcripts and the real copy of his birth certificate.

Seems fair but let's include his college entrance papers too so he can lay to rest once and for all the theory that he got into all those fancy schools as a foreign student. (cough)

Why is that relevent in any way, shape or form.

Especially back in those days where he'd have had an easier time getting in under Affirmative Action rules.

Romney, on the other hand, is making his case for the presidency on his business acumen. So why won't he show us his business records? Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Romney wants Roe V. Wade overturned.

And to defile the Ground Zero Mosque.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not gonna happen. Romney is the one with the problem, not Obama.

Obama has a serious problem - his performance record while in office.

 

[manifold]

We've all heard enough mud-slinging ads from both Presidential candidates. I'm ready to hear some ads that very specifically tell me what each of the Presidential candidates intend to do if they are elected President. None of the "generalized" political garble. Tell me in very easy to understand truthful language what you intend to do for the American population if you win the White House.

Who's with me?

Like your mind isn't already made up.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not pooh poohing your desire. I am disgreeing with your basic premise. Had McCain won the presidency, we would be in exactly the same position we are today. If Romney wins, we will be in exactly the same position as if Obama wins. It really doens't make a heck of a lot of difference in terms of our overall economic position. Where the real difference comes in is the government's invasion of our personal lives, which seems to be some kind of fixation of the far right these days.

Well I'm sorry but I don't have a crystal ball or clairvoyant guru who can provide me such clarity on what would have happened if McCain had won. One thing I'm pretty damn sure of is that he wouldn't have signed off on a bloated, budget busting, pork laden appropriations bill shortly after his election. He would not have seized banks and automobile companies and put them under government control. He would not have signed Obamacare. He would not have passed an almost trillion dollar stimulus bill that went mostly to prop up irresponsible Democratic state governments, pay off political cronies, and wasted on non-job-creating projects or projects doomed to fail such as Solyndra.

And he wouldn't have been constantly threatening job producers with higher taxes during almost every speech. He's so left in some ways he should probably be a Democrat, but he could never in a million years be as anti-business as Obama has been.

You mean, he would have allowed the banks to crash and the auto industry to go down the toilet? He would have sat by and watched the run on banks and let hundreds of thousands lose their jobs, probably sending us into another depression? I would prefer to think that McCain, who I voted for btw, would have been smarter than that. In fact, I doubt Romney would have hanlded it any differently.

The difference between someone running for president and someone being president is that the latter actually has to make decisions based upon the circumstances. They don't get to choose the circumstances. There are some exceptions to that, of course. The invasion of Iraq for example.

Neither would have propped up banks purely because they had been huge campaign donors. There were other ways to save the banking industry without propping up and continuing the prop up failing banks. And yes both would have allowed General Motors to declare bankruptcy, reorganize, and solve its problems immediately. GM declared bankruptcy anyway and the USA lost Chrysler anyway. We lost the jobs anyway. Why should that have been at cost of billions to the American taxpayers? And now the USA is the controlling stockholder in GM and we are still funneling massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into that company to keep it afloat. The profits they report are not U.S. profits.

You don't save jobs by continuing to prop up failing enterprises. The only jobs that Obama can legitimately take credit for 'creating' are jobs funded with taxpayer money and huge increases in government jobs that are also funded with taxpayer money and continue to suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

 

[candycorn]

Total shit.

Dodge, Chrysler, and GM are making and selling trucks today.

 

[Caroljo]

[

So did Obamacare....
You don't remember Obama had to bribe Senator Stupak to vote FOR the healthcare? Stupak was holding out because of the Abortion clause in it, he didn't want the taxpayers to be paying for this and he didn't believe in abortion. Obama promised to remove it if he voted for it.....so he did.

I never have heard if Obama kept his promise to remove it......anyone know???

Stupak was a Congressman, not a Senator.

Whatever, so i misspoke. It was still in Obamacare, and i've never heard that he actually removed it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Total shit.

Dodge, Chrysler, and GM are making and selling trucks today.

Yes they are..Even a credit score of 500 and less will get you 3.9% financing........

They brag about it on the radio daily...............

 

[Foxfyre]

Total shit.

Dodge, Chrysler, and GM are making and selling trucks today.

Dodge is a division of Chrysler dear.

The majority and controlling owner of GM are the U.S. government and the U.A.W and GM continues to receives huge subsidies courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Almost all of the profitable divisions of GM are overseas however.

The majority and controlling owner of Chrysler is now Fiat, not an American corporation, with significant stock also owned by the UAW along the the U.S. and Canadian governments.

Had G.M. and Chrysler been allowed to take bankruptcy from the beginning, they could have reorganized and started over. As it is, after infusion of more taxpayer provided billions than our entire foreign aid budget, the government funded bankruptcies declared by both companies have resulted in saving those UAW overpriced union jobs, resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, created no new jobs, and we the taxpayers continue to fund them so they can pretend they are reporting a profit.

Now if you think that is a healthy situation for a free America, I can't do much for you. Those of us who still think, however, see it for what it is.

I don't mind the U.A.W. owning businesses if they want to, but I sure as hell object to my tax dollars buying those business for them so they can continue to smoke dope in the parking lot and draw higher-than-average pay at my expense.

 

[Greenbeard]

So did Obamacare....
You don't remember Obama had to bribe Senator Stupak to vote FOR the healthcare? Stupak was holding out because of the Abortion clause in it, he didn't want the taxpayers to be paying for this and he didn't believe in abortion. Obama promised to remove it if he voted for it.....so he did.

I never have heard if Obama kept his promise to remove it......anyone know???

There's nothing to remove. Obamacare has forbid federal funding for abortions from the beginning.

See: 42 USC § 18023 - Special rules

 

[Foxfyre]

So did Obamacare....
You don't remember Obama had to bribe Senator Stupak to vote FOR the healthcare? Stupak was holding out because of the Abortion clause in it, he didn't want the taxpayers to be paying for this and he didn't believe in abortion. Obama promised to remove it if he voted for it.....so he did.

I never have heard if Obama kept his promise to remove it......anyone know???

There's nothing to remove. Obamacare has forbid federal funding for abortions from the beginning.

See: 42 USC § 18023 - Special rules

No it hasn't. All it did was specify that it would follow the existing law. There is nothing to prevent Obamacare from funding whatever it wants to fund should the law be changed however, and certainly there is allowance for some federal funding for abortions even in the portion that you linked.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, told the Free Beacon recently that “there are a number of different components in Obamacare that would expand abortion” as well as several provisions to fund abortion.

Johnson explained that abortion funding “is always included unless it’s explicitly excluded.”

He provided Medicaid as an example: “Medicaid law doesn’t say anything about abortion, so Medicaid began to pay for abortion on demand.” According to federal law, “abortions are medical services,” he said.

The Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding of abortion, but does not cover the new provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

“Direct appropriations,” Johnson explained, fall outside the “regular funding pipeline” of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which the Hyde Amendment covers.

In sworn testimony of October 2010, Johnson recorded the failure of two amendments—Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch—to the House and Senate versions of the Affordable Care Act.

Each would have ensured that the law could neither directly fund abortion nor subsidize insurance plans including it.
Obamacare and Abortion | Washington Free Beacon

 

[Greenbeard]

There is nothing to prevent Obamacare from funding whatever it wants to fund should the law be changed

The law funds abortions because the law could be changed to allow it to fund abortions. Brilliant.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is nothing to prevent Obamacare from funding whatever it wants to fund should the law be changed

The law funds abortions because the law could be changed to allow it to fund abortions. Brilliant.

No, it's pretty much a second grade concept. There is nothing in Obamacare that prevents federal funding of abortions of any type, at any time, by any means. All the clause stated is that existing law would be obeyed. Should Congress repeal the existing law, there will be no restrictions of any kind on federal funding of abortions via any provision of Obamacare. And even with the existing law in place, there are plenty of ways the federal government can fund abortions via Obamacare.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well I'm sorry but I don't have a crystal ball or clairvoyant guru who can provide me such clarity on what would have happened if McCain had won. One thing I'm pretty damn sure of is that he wouldn't have signed off on a bloated, budget busting, pork laden appropriations bill shortly after his election. He would not have seized banks and automobile companies and put them under government control. He would not have signed Obamacare. He would not have passed an almost trillion dollar stimulus bill that went mostly to prop up irresponsible Democratic state governments, pay off political cronies, and wasted on non-job-creating projects or projects doomed to fail such as Solyndra.

And he wouldn't have been constantly threatening job producers with higher taxes during almost every speech. He's so left in some ways he should probably be a Democrat, but he could never in a million years be as anti-business as Obama has been.

You mean, he would have allowed the banks to crash and the auto industry to go down the toilet? He would have sat by and watched the run on banks and let hundreds of thousands lose their jobs, probably sending us into another depression? I would prefer to think that McCain, who I voted for btw, would have been smarter than that. In fact, I doubt Romney would have hanlded it any differently.

The difference between someone running for president and someone being president is that the latter actually has to make decisions based upon the circumstances. They don't get to choose the circumstances. There are some exceptions to that, of course. The invasion of Iraq for example.

Neither would have propped up banks purely because they had been huge campaign donors. There were other ways to save the banking industry without propping up and continuing the prop up failing banks. And yes both would have allowed General Motors to declare bankruptcy, reorganize, and solve its problems immediately. GM declared bankruptcy anyway and the USA lost Chrysler anyway. We lost the jobs anyway. Why should that have been at cost of billions to the American taxpayers? And now the USA is the controlling stockholder in GM and we are still funneling massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into that company to keep it afloat. The profits they report are not U.S. profits.

You don't save jobs by continuing to prop up failing enterprises. The only jobs that Obama can legitimately take credit for 'creating' are jobs funded with taxpayer money and huge increases in government jobs that are also funded with taxpayer money and continue to suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

I agree they would not have done it to prop up campaign donors. Neither did Obama. But they both would have done the bailouts. I would point out to you that Obama did not put the bailouts together. They were already done and approved by the Bush administration, with the full support of the republicans in both houses, before Obama was sworn in. Obama oversaw the distribution of funds already approved. He did not create them.

The reason the government stepped in to help finance that chapter 11 was because there were no other sources to do it. The banks weren't handing out any cash at the time. The Bush administration saw that and stepped in to keep a bad situation from turning worse. The Obama administration agreed. So would have a McCain administration. In fact, McCain - as senator - voted for it.

If you think Romney will be better for the country, then you should vote for him. That's why we have more than one candidate. But four years is a little early to completely rewrite history.

BTW, keeping major industry from collapsing is an excellent way to save jobs. Just ask the people who didn't lose their jobs. They are taxpayers too.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is nothing to prevent Obamacare from funding whatever it wants to fund should the law be changed

The law funds abortions because the law could be changed to allow it to fund abortions. Brilliant.

No, it's pretty much a second grade concept. There is nothing in Obamacare that prevents federal funding of abortions of any type, at any time, by any means. All the clause stated is that existing law would be obeyed. Should Congress repeal the existing law, there will be no restrictions of any kind on federal funding of abortions via any provision of Obamacare. And even with the existing law in place, there are plenty of ways the federal government can fund abortions via Obamacare.

Well, that is one major point in its favor then. How would you suggest we go about making it do that?

 

[Barb]

Who seriously expects to get actual policy positions from political ads? There's much better sources for both their respective positions and analysis of them.

and when the respective committee platforms come out, they would be two of those.

Maybe we should contrast them with the ones they adopted in 2008:

Dems

The Democratic Party Platform | Democrats.org

and the upcoming event:
Democratic National Committee and Obama for America Announce 2012 Convention Platform Committee | Democrats.org

A national hearing will take place July 27-29, 2012 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The hearing will include an opportunity for the public to make presentations before the Platform Drafting Committee. The Committee will then meet to draft the 2012 Democratic Platform which will ultimately be used as a working document by the full Platform Committee.

Pubs:

http://gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2008platform.pdf

game plan:

RNC Counsel's Office - GOP

and upcoming:

2012 Republican National Convention | Tampa Bay, Florida - August 27 - 30, 2012 | GOPConvention2012.com

Republican National Convention 2012

The 2012 Republican National Convention will be held at the Tampa Bay Times Forum from August 27-30, 2012,

 

[Foxfyre]

The law funds abortions because the law could be changed to allow it to fund abortions. Brilliant.

No, it's pretty much a second grade concept. There is nothing in Obamacare that prevents federal funding of abortions of any type, at any time, by any means. All the clause stated is that existing law would be obeyed. Should Congress repeal the existing law, there will be no restrictions of any kind on federal funding of abortions via any provision of Obamacare. And even with the existing law in place, there are plenty of ways the federal government can fund abortions via Obamacare.

Well, that is one major point in its favor then. How would you suggest we go about making it do that?

I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. While I think there are necessary ethical and medical reasons for abortion and those should always be accessible, safe, and legal, I cannot ethically fund abortion for convenience in ANY circumstance. Whether private insurance companies fund abortion is their business. But I don't have to be agreeable to the federal government funding it.

I also want any decisions for a necessary abortion to be made between the woman and her doctor and for the federal government to stay out of that process entirely.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it's pretty much a second grade concept. There is nothing in Obamacare that prevents federal funding of abortions of any type, at any time, by any means. All the clause stated is that existing law would be obeyed. Should Congress repeal the existing law, there will be no restrictions of any kind on federal funding of abortions via any provision of Obamacare. And even with the existing law in place, there are plenty of ways the federal government can fund abortions via Obamacare.

Well, that is one major point in its favor then. How would you suggest we go about making it do that?

I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. While I think there are necessary ethical and medical reasons for abortion and those should always be accessible, safe, and legal, I cannot ethically fund abortion for convenience in ANY circumstance. Whether private insurance companies fund abortion is their business. But I don't have to be agreeable to the federal government funding it.

I also want any decisions for a necessary abortion to be made between the woman and her doctor and for the federal government to stay out of that process entirely.

I was just being snide. I do that sometimes and I really shouldn't. I apologize.