Romney last night: "The stimulus could have been better directed"

[Inthemiddle]

Evangelicals won't support them

Who have beliefs that are so crazy they shouldn't be let out of the house without adult supervision...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I do.

You should put that up as a poll question.

You can if you want to. I'm already depressed by how many "conservatives" are willing to delude themselves about Romney.

Honestly, I feel like that movie where Roddy Piper is the only one who can see the aliens.

To the point. Romney thinks that there should be universal health care. Everyone should be covered. Now, if given his druthers, Obama would have prefered a Canadian style single payer system (which would actually be more efficient than the 500 middleman system that RomneyCare and ObamaCare actually are.) Romney liked a system that gave huge payoffs to Big Insurance whether we wanted them or not.

The ugly little secret about Obama/RomneyCare - the Insurance companies are all for it. It increases their customer base, and they will probably find new ways to cheat customers out of payments.

The real problem is that health costs are spiralling out of control, and no one has a good plan for solving that problem. All ObamneyCare does is put a bandaid on the sucking chest wound.

I don't trust Romney, but it's looking more and more like he is going to be the nominee.

This crop of candidates are the "tweeners" (except for Rick Perry and Dr. Paul).

They are the old GOP, because none of the new GOP dynamic are strong enough or well known enough to mount a presidential campaign.

That's the excuse for the ineffectiveness o' the herd o' Teabaggers who were elected, in 2010......they weren't "strong enough or well known enough"?????

Gee.....and, they said they had alllllllllllllllllllllllll the answers!!

Stupid Teabaggers.....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

it worked and would have worked better with MORE stimulus as apposed to all the tax cuts the right insisted on

The only thing that's working is the economy....as in fear of total Democrat control being over has improved it.

You man-on-dog fans are tooooooooooooooooo amusing!!!!!

You're also too inexperienced to understand....

.....the way things WORK!!!

Stupid Teabaggers....​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only thing that's working is the economy....as in fear of total Democrat control being over has improved it.

Funny how when Obama held all of the cards everything was falling apart. Now that he doesn't things are improving.....but that doesn't stop him from claiming credit for it.

Obama said in the past that if things didn't turn around he'd be a one term president. He acknowledged his political accountability.

Then why is he running for re-election?

Until some conservatives got in the House, things were steadily going south. since, not so bad.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

You say that as if there was some cause and effect, and yet you never tell us what the cause and effect was.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Context is always vital to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. I had thought that was obvious. Goes to show, even I can be wrong.

If, for example, he was asked specifically about the stimulus, he may have responded "it could have been better spent", that would be absolutely true. I agree, it could have been better spent. Does that mean I support it? No. It is a statement of fact, the money could have been better spent. It does not equate to support for the stimulus though... unless you're a fucking moron with an agenda to 'prove' that Romney is not the right candidate.

I like context. That way, I know what I'm talking about. Pity that more people do not understand the value of context.

Your opinions are not being lost on me, trust me.

That is exactly the context he used it in. But I don't agree that the money can be "better spent", because I don't believe the money does any good being spent at all. It requires that we be taxed more when we're taxed enough, and that more money is borrowed or printed, when we've borrowed and printed too much already.

As a fiscal conservative, advocating even a single dollar of money directed ANYWHERE in a "stimulus" package flies in the face of your very ideology.

Unless I know in what context he responded that it could have been 'better spent', I cannot comment on the statement. You do get that, right? I've seen this time and again in this country, on this board... people take a sentence and turn it into something it is not. That is not honest debate.

It's called.....

HANNITIZING!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h172eAPdPFo&feature=related]Sean Hannity caught in a blatant lie - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izp5q5pqhe0&feature=related]Hannity gets caught red handed - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ons7Lz4PWyc&feature=related]Sean Hannity gets Punk'd on his own show. LOL - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E&feature=related]Sean Hannity Confesses Using Fake Footage: "Jon Stewart Was Right!" - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Link? Only 10% of American workers belong to a union. That's not really enough to whine about.

But I think the right has an interesting policy. Should make a great election year slogan:

****PROSPERITY THROUGH LOWER WAGES****​

If only 10% of workers are union, and so much money was thrown at union projects, then it would stand to reason that the primary beneficiaries were the union bosses.

Don't you guys ever provide links to anything you say? Ever?

It's hard to link to the radiowaves being picked up by the fillings in your teeth.

 

[Paulie]

Link? Only 10% of American workers belong to a union. That's not really enough to whine about.

But I think the right has an interesting policy. Should make a great election year slogan:

****PROSPERITY THROUGH LOWER WAGES****​

If only 10% of workers are union, and so much money was thrown at union projects, then it would stand to reason that the primary beneficiaries were the union bosses.

Don't you guys ever provide links to anything you say? Ever?

You need a link to tell you that 1/3 of the stimulus expenditures went to state and local governments, where unions reign supreme?

Seriously?

 

[Missourian]

Personally, I don't give a whit or a tittle that he's a Mormon.

Mormons, in general, are good folks, and it seems to me that they live their lives more in accord with the teachings of their scripture than most Christians.

JMHO, YMMV.

My encounters with Mormons have been just the opposite. I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him.

Also, they have beliefs that are so crazy they shouldn't be let out of the house without adult supervision.

But to the point, Evangelicals won't support them, and the GOP can't win without them.

It's good to show contempt for your base.

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

Personally, I don't give a whit or a tittle that he's a Mormon.

Mormons, in general, are good folks, and it seems to me that they live their lives more in accord with the teachings of their scripture than most Christians.

JMHO, YMMV.

My encounters with Mormons have been just the opposite. I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him.

Also, they have beliefs that are so crazy they shouldn't be let out of the house without adult supervision.

But to the point, Evangelicals won't support them, and the GOP can't win without them.

It's good to show contempt for your base.

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

 

[Paulie]

My encounters with Mormons have been just the opposite. I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him.

Also, they have beliefs that are so crazy they shouldn't be let out of the house without adult supervision.

But to the point, Evangelicals won't support them, and the GOP can't win without them.

It's good to show contempt for your base.

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

Because he's got no conviction. To him, elections are just horse races. I mean I like the guy and all, he and I share similar interests fiscally, but I see him just settling for whatever will work.

He used to have strong conviction about Perry until he fell back down in the polls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Upsets me? Not during this lifetime, I can assure you. Please don't confuse my anal retentive desire for context with any kind of emotion. I dislike it when other people project their own emotions onto me. It shows a lack of intellect.

Yeah and I dislike when people are too stupid to realize the answer they're looking for is right the fuck in front of them, but you don't see me going off about it post after post.

You paraphrasing a sentence, without any background as to what the sentence was in response to, or the context of the sentence, is not 'right the fuck in front of them'. It is just you whining about a sentence that you (regardless of context) disagree with.

I find that somewhat surprising. Normally you are not someone I dismiss as an idiot.

Why didn't you just look it up yourself, like you tell others to do?

 

[JoeB131]

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

Because he's got no conviction. To him, elections are just horse races. I mean I like the guy and all, he and I share similar interests fiscally, but I see him just settling for whatever will work.

He used to have strong conviction about Perry until he fell back down in the polls.

If you are complaining about Missourian, I don't have a problem with that. Perry was a huge disappointment to all of us who had hoped he would be the alternative to Romney.

And I admit, my dislike of Romney is visceral. I don't like him as a person. But if you aren't hung up about that, and in a "lesser of two evils", I can see how a lot of people can get behind him.

Again, I really think the GOP doesn't want to win this race. I think they know the economy is going to take a long time to mend, and they are happy to let Obama twist in the wind.

 

[Paulie]

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

Because he's got no conviction. To him, elections are just horse races. I mean I like the guy and all, he and I share similar interests fiscally, but I see him just settling for whatever will work.

He used to have strong conviction about Perry until he fell back down in the polls.

If you are complaining about Missourian, I don't have a problem with that. Perry was a huge disappointment to all of us who had hoped he would be the alternative to Romney.

And I admit, my dislike of Romney is visceral. I don't like him as a person. But if you aren't hung up about that, and in a "lesser of two evils", I can see how a lot of people can get behind him.

Again, I really think the GOP doesn't want to win this race. I think they know the economy is going to take a long time to mend, and they are happy to let Obama twist in the wind.

Yes I was talking about Missourian. What's such a disappointment about Perry to you? He's still the same guy he was when he entered the race in August, the only difference is he's not up in the polls. That means you have to abandon your support for him? If he's the guy you like, then vote for him. At least you can go home and sleep well knowing you made your own choice for YOU, instead of someone else's choice for the purpose of some horse race.

Until people wake up and start voting like this, we're going to continue to get fucked by both sides. They know that's how the electorate votes, and they take advantage of it every single election.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

So I assume you are an anarchist? because all government spending is "stimulus" some wasteful some not.

 

[dblack]

So I assume you are an anarchist? because all government spending is "stimulus" some wasteful some not.

I disagree. There's a qualitative difference between government spending our tax dollars to perform its legitimate functions, and government spending money with the express purpose of manipulating the economy toward a specific end.

 

[Missourian]

My encounters with Mormons have been just the opposite. I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him.

Also, they have beliefs that are so crazy they shouldn't be let out of the house without adult supervision.

But to the point, Evangelicals won't support them, and the GOP can't win without them.

It's good to show contempt for your base.

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

There are four candidates left in this race that realistically have a chance of winning the nomination...Perry isn't one of them IMO.

(And even Perry isn't fiscally conservative enough.)

So now is the time to pragmatically assess the rest of the field.

Dr. Paul - By far the most fiscally conservative, but I totally disagree with his foreign policy positions and legalizing drugs.

Gingrich - Big government conservative, pretty much the status quo. Lots and lots of baggage...Ron Paul demolished him in Iowa with little effort.

Santorum - A+ on social issues and B on defense issues, but not a fiscal conservative IMO. I predict you will see a big fall in the next week or two.

Romney - Somewhat fiscally conservative, will balance the budget, favors balanced budget amendment, opposes abortion, favors strong 2nd amendment protection, favors cutting both waste and spending, favors border fence and removing incentives for illegal immigrants, opposes amnesty.

Of the candidates that I believe are still viable...Romney's platform is the best fit for me.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The stimulus should have been a check made out to the tax paying individuals of this country. That money would have eliminated public debt and would have stengthened our economy in all sorts of ways. Entrepenuership would have exploded, as these people would have had the money to start up their own business. Investment would have increased. Homes would have been payed off deflating the bubble. Each tax paying person in this country getting a check for 100k instead of bailing out banks and businesses, would have benefitted us much better than what actually happened.

100K?? That would have been incredibly destructive over the long term.

 

[Missourian]

I am an Evangelical Social Conservative.

I'm happy for you..

So why are you voting for a socially liberal Mormon.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is beating Obama because you hate Obama, by all m eans, do so.

I need a better reason. So far, Romney hasn't given me one.

Because he's got no conviction. To him, elections are just horse races. I mean I like the guy and all, he and I share similar interests fiscally, but I see him just settling for whatever will work.

He used to have strong conviction about Perry until he fell back down in the polls.

I have a conviction to post the truth.

I could continue to beat the drum for Perry to the bitter end out of pride or vanity, and continue to torpedo Romney over being butt-hurt that the rest of the party didn't choose to agree with my choice.

But what purpose does that serve.

I prefer to post my honest assessment and the reasoning process by which I arrived at my conclusion.

 

[JoeB131]

Because he's got no conviction. To him, elections are just horse races. I mean I like the guy and all, he and I share similar interests fiscally, but I see him just settling for whatever will work.

He used to have strong conviction about Perry until he fell back down in the polls.

If you are complaining about Missourian, I don't have a problem with that. Perry was a huge disappointment to all of us who had hoped he would be the alternative to Romney.

And I admit, my dislike of Romney is visceral. I don't like him as a person. But if you aren't hung up about that, and in a "lesser of two evils", I can see how a lot of people can get behind him.

Again, I really think the GOP doesn't want to win this race. I think they know the economy is going to take a long time to mend, and they are happy to let Obama twist in the wind.

Yes I was talking about Missourian. What's such a disappointment about Perry to you? He's still the same guy he was when he entered the race in August, the only difference is he's not up in the polls. That means you have to abandon your support for him? If he's the guy you like, then vote for him. At least you can go home and sleep well knowing you made your own choice for YOU, instead of someone else's choice for the purpose of some horse race.

Until people wake up and start voting like this, we're going to continue to get fucked by both sides. They know that's how the electorate votes, and they take advantage of it every single election.

Well, it's not a matter of the Polls. It's a matter of his ability to fight the fight. Perry jumped in figuring this was going to be easy, that the other candidates are jokes (which they are). He was the guy who had enough establishment cred and Tea Party cred to re-unite the party.

Then he got into the debates, and it was clear he wasn't ready for them. I think he's done better in the later debates, but the damage was already done, and all he's really doing now is keeping the anti-Romney forces from congeeling behind a single standard-bearer.

I could vote for Perry and sleep well at night. I could also vote for Santorum or Gingrich. I'm even finding myself warming up to Huntsman despite my inclination to not like Mormons. Romney just rubs me the wrong way. and I think Ron Paul is too erratic to do the job, although he makes a lot of sense on Israel.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney - Somewhat fiscally conservative, will balance the budget, favors balanced budget amendment, opposes abortion, favors strong 2nd amendment protection, favors cutting both waste and spending, favors border fence and removing incentives for illegal immigrants, opposes amnesty.

Of the candidates that I believe are still viable...Romney's platform is the best fit for me.

But you see, that's not what I see in Romney.

Balancing the budget is going to mean making some hard choices. I don't see Romney as making the hard choices. He didn't in MA, where he essentially rolled over for the Democratic legislature at every oppurtunity.

2nd Amendment- He supported Gun Laws in MA.

I'm not sure he opposes abortion, but frankly, since abortion will never be outlawed in this country, I don't care that much about that.

Amnesty- again, he's also said that we can't deport 11 million people.

The thing is, Mitt could debate himself pretty easily, he's been on every side of every issue.