Last updated on 2012.10.04
...because it doesn't work!
I'll be watching the first Presidential debate tonight and kibbitzing via Twitter.
Part of the debate will focus on health care, wherein the Republican who prototyped the Affordable Care Act will deny history and reality to separate himself from the Affordable Care Act.
Maybe Mitt Romney will try to distinguish himself from President Barack Obama by repeating his call to allow insurers to sell health policies across state lines. That's one of the few specific health care policies South Dakota Congresswoman Kristi Noem can stammer when asked what she'd do about health care.
The Hill points to new research from Georgetown University that shows that Romney and Noem are both wrong. Given the opportunity, not even the insurance companies want to bother with interstate health insurance:
Although these proposals are often touted as an alternative to the ACA, our analysis in six states found that across state lines laws did not result in a single insurer entering the market or the sale of a single new insurance product. Further, there was no evidence that these initiatives actually bring down costs or increase consumer options. In fact, such proposals could put consumers at risk by limiting state officials' ability to respond to the needs of their residents and eliminating important state-based protections.
The bottom line: There is no "easy button" to bring down insurance costs and provide consumers with more choices. Quick fix gimmicks such as the across state lines proposals have failed largely because they are unable to address the true barriers to insurance market competition (such as building a provider network) and don't account for localized health insurance rules. At the same time, if enacted more broadly, these laws could undermine consumer protections by reducing the ability of state regulators to oversee insurers and respond meaningfully to consumer complaints [Sabrina Corlette, "The Impact of Laws to Allow Cross-State Sales of Health Insurance: Few Benefits, Potential Risks for Consumers," The Center on Health Insurance Reforms: CHIR Blog, Ocotber 3, 2012].
Selling insurance across state lines empirically fails. Mitt, Kristi, better strike that failed plan from your websites.
Romney won this debate hands down.
only because Obama let him. Romney lied throughtout, but the President didn't call him on it. the $716 billion lie about Medicare. Romney said he won't raise taxes on the middle class, that's a lie. And worse, that Romney cares about the poor people. he doesn't. Plus Romney still didn't talk about specifics. I hope people realize this
Romney wowed them!! Obama looked lost without his teleprompter, looked angry most of the time, and even Bill Maher admitted Obama did a poor job. That's really bad!
Obama won huge. Romney grimaced all night like he had a big [...]. Who wants to spend the next four years wondering if Romney's sphincter is going to let loose?
Mr. Pay it sounds like you weren't going to say Romney did well regardless. Romney cleaned up.
Linda, turn down the polarization on those Romney-colored glasses a notch. I didn't hear "lost". (Reagan 1984, first debate: now that was lost.) The President sounded focused in all of his remarks. He was subdued, but on point. He never went for a knockout punch; he spoke like a guy who didn't see a need to take risks in this performance. Romney attacked well on some points, but he perpetuated lies about the "unelected board" making your health care decisions and dodged the basic math on his tax cut plan.
Owen hits one of many points that have the fact-checkers abuzz. Romney was clearly more animated which may have caused many to miss his denial of points he has been campaigning on, such as saying he has not proposed a $5 trillion tax cut when that has been a consistent and persistent claim up until tonight.
We'll have to judge his performance when the replays are reviewed and analyzed.
Romney cleaned up, I suppose, after the big [dump] he just took. I was not fooled, but I'm sure some were. When every third sentence you speak is bull[...], I guess the more intellectually challenged audience members might be snowed. Anyone paying attention to the Republican campaign realizes that Mitt just lied about half of the time tonight. Obama's could have called him on it, but why? The guy will just change position again next debate. You have to realize Mitt is trying a corporate takeover here. He'll say and do anything to be in control so he can strap more debt on this country and sell it off piece by piece to the wealthy elites.
Well, Obama was at a disadvantage because he was trying to tell the truth. Romney had not reservations about lying again and again and when not an outright lie, it was misleading at best. There was a lot of prediction of "zingers" coming. The only thing close to that was Obama noting the Romney had flopped on an issue and now his new position was "Never Mind.".
I think Obama could have done better in the debate, but may have won another battle in the "war" by coming across as he did anyway.
Romney will have a lot of questions to answer after his debate stories.
My glasses see just fine, thank you. And my hearing is just fine too. And I heard and saw a great debate from Romney and a very poor performance from the supposed great orator of the century. Subdued?? I saw anger and annoyance, which seems to be the general consensus.
The unelected board is there to control Medicare costs, and the only way it could do that would be to limit eligibility, cut benefits, or cut provider payments. That would directly or indirectly make health care decisions for all Medicare recipients. Why else would it be there?
Linda was dropping acid, or her normal state is to be in constant hallcinatory mode. Romney proved himself to be a grimacing liar.
I guess we see what we want. The President offered a clear explanation of what the board really is, not the lie Romney unashamedly peddles. Fact is, that advisory panel is one more way that ObamaCare is exactly like RomneyCare: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80114.html
(That said, it's nice to hear from you again, Linda!)
There are many such "best practices" boards in all sorts of professions. This is actually something welcomed by the health insurance industry as well. It would help if you knew something about the issue, rather than spewing ignorant speculation.
Thanks for cleaning up my language. I appreciate it.
The only person I saw telling whoppers tonight was Obama. And it doesn't do him any good to defend a health care plan a majority of Americans do not want.
Romney was strong and impressive. He won hands down.
Donald once again shows his lovely disposition.
I liked very much the parts where Governor Romney said that the 5 trillion was simply not true. As I seem to remember from somewhere in a galaxy far far away, CBO scores on a 10 scale. That puts $485 Billion a year, his and Eddie Munster's numbers, into...what? Yep 5 Trillion. The other part was the tax cuts to make 12 million new high paying jobs. If he is against green energy and loves him some China outsourcing, then exactly what would these 12 million new hires do? And as he so energetically said, there are 43 million out of work, what about those 30 million? Some folks say the Governor Romney won tonight, he probably did, but America just lost, and that is a shame.
I'm happy the debate revolved around issues that matter. Romney did well and Obama didn't. It wasnt' the formats fault Obama didn't hit Romney on anything.
It's better than this garbage Kristi Noem campaign about nothing. Now she's someone I understand not supporting because she is full of BS and a hypocrite but I like what Romney is saying and how he debated tonight.
Bush and Obama have both been bad presidents. We need to go a fundamentally different direction than Bush and Obama.
The people who think Romney won like warmed over lies, and do not live in reality.
I can't believe you think Romney lied. Obama has been lieing about his healthcare program for years. He tried to rip Romney for not telling the people what his plan was. HELLO! Obama and Democrats didn't even know what was in his plan when he signed it into law.
CBS poll: Romney wins by 2-1 margin amongst undecided voters
CNN poll: Romney wins with 67% of undecideds polled.
If Obama had such a bad debate but the facts were on his side he must have done a horrible job. - I think it has more to do with unpopular policies and his position aren't in line with a majority of Americans. Oh and Americans have been getting a bunch of BS from his cabinet about his policies for 4 years.
"I can't believe you think Romney lied"
He has been lying the whole time. I can't believe you are daft enough to think reducing tax revenue will reduce the deficit. I guess if somebody says it in a calming way, you feel better about your trouble with math.
Justin, Here is the thinking behind this.
If you lower the tax rate it encourages people to invest their money into the economy because there is a greater return on investment. Spending private sector money creates more revenue for the government in the form of taxation. it isn't that the tax rate went up it's that more money is being spent to tax. Once the economy begins to improve individuals start spending more money. If you think about it an income tax is a poor way to tax individuals because as people lose their jobs in a bad economy the government is also losing revenue.
The idea behind the Bush tax cuts and Obama's stimulus aren't much different. (I'm not sure I'm a fan of either approach) But Bush sent money back to individuals where Obama sent his to state and local governments to spend/hire etc. Eventually the money got into the tax system increasing revenue. Problem for both plans is they eventually run out of money because they are both short sighted.
I know the thinking Mike. I studied economics at an Ivy League school. It isn't true.
Case in point: after the bush tax cuts gross tax revenue decreased for three consecutive yeas without adjusting for inflation OR the massive spending increases W and the gop presided over.
If somebody told you we could spend our way out the deficit would you believe it?
Sorry for the missing words and misspells, I'm on a phone.
At least the Obama stimulus was temporary. The tax cuts have now become defacto permanent and Romney wants to take us to a level lower than the lowest ever last year when tax receipts were 17.9% of gdp. If the "job creators" aren't creating jobs with the lowest tax rates in history and the economy is growing at the lowest rate ever, how can you tell me with a straight face that lower taxes will improve the situation?
It is a recipe for disaster. The entitlement costs are going to continue to increase and the revenue is going to decrease.
I think Biden did say we could spend our way out of this. No I didn't believe him. LOL!
We have a fundamental problem in this country. We spend too much money on crap we don't need. BOTH PARTIES. It's been longer than 4 years - it's not just Obama. I don't have a problem raising taxes to pay down the defecit but I'm not going to support raising taxes to pay for more crap and I'd need a serious cut in spending to support a tax increase. And I mean serious.
We don't have a revenue problem in this country we have a spending problem.
Here is the thing. I don't want to spend stimulus money creating a deficit and I don't want the Bush tax cuts to increase the deficit. What I want are people to decide if they want to pay for crap THIS GENERATION and if they don't want to pay for it then they need to stop spending it.
I feel the same as you, although I think the "we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem" statement is trite nonsense. We have both.
I'd like to see a source for Biden saying permanent spending increases would decrease the deficit. That sounds like a convenient lie.
In any case if you are worried about spending, you should be furious that Romney wants to spend hundreds of billions more annually than the Joint Chiefs want on the military budget. $100 billion to repeal ACA is also ludicrous considering it is his own plan and the entire rationale is to "win" a point and to continue letting the medical industry rape our government and our people.
Romney blitzkreiged the debate with sheer force of will, showing us his CEO side. Never mind that he lost on practically all his points from a rational standpoint, no one even noticed.
One comment I liked from the talking heads was "It's as though he said he was going to paint your house blue, but when he's done it will look red."
Pure Orwell.
Mike, Bill points to the very real disconnect between fact and who wins the perception battle in a debate. The "unelected board" serves the same safe and sensible advisory capacity in RomneyCare that it does in ObamaCare. Voodoo economics don't tell us how the budget balances; Romney has no numbers to tell us his tax cuts don't add to the deficit, and as the President pointed out, the data from the 1990s and the 2000s show that Clinton policies boost the economy while Bush policies do not.
I do agree, Mike, that the debate was good in that it focused almost entirely on policies the two men support and not on silly stuff like birth certificates, what church they go to, how they transport their dogs, etc. Heck, Obama didn't even go after the Bain lay-offs or the 47% line; that rhetorical restraint is why people have the perception that Obama didn't win the debate.
But Obama didn't appear interested in winning the debate. He simply told the truth, corrected Romney's errors, and stayed Presidential. That's the strategy of a front-runner whose numbers tell him that the final month is all about avoiding errors, who understands that he doesn't have to convince people that you can't trust the other guy to do the job, because a majority of voters have already made that decision.
Clinton fiscal policies led to the real estate bubble. His administration squashed the regulation of derivatives.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/bill-clinton-derivatives-my-bad/
"The former president admits his error: He said his Treasury Secretaries — Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers — were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives. And, he was wrong to follow their advice."
The Democrat are just as guilty as the Republicans for the state of the economy.
If the housing issue lays equal blame at both parties' feet, then it's not a voting issue. Obama compared tax policies: the Clinton tax policies saw much better job and wage growth.
Romney's claim his 20% tax cut which favors wealthy people like himself will not increase the deficit by $5 Trillion dollars because we would pay for it from future earnings is a fairy dust defense. His contention reminds me of his investment banker friends who took sub-prime mortgages, had them blessed by credit rating agencies and sold them to unsuspecting investors as triple A securities. It was the root cause of the economic crisis in 2008. We need to reject the same scam wrapped up in a different package.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Great observations Cory!
I don't see how anybody can say Obama won. At least the president didn't make a huge mistake like Ford did. i also belive this will hurt him but it is not a game changer
Michael, that is sheer fantasy. Look at the home ownership when Clinton left office vs its peak of 70% in 2004 and its pricing peak in 2006. Google "culture of ownership", w's push to get everybody to own houses. Even has home ownership peaked in 2004, w was still pushing programs reducing down payments on houses and he had already eliminated down payments for FHA loans. The claim that Clinton started a recession that started in 2008 is absolute nonsense.
http://jparsons.net/housingbubble/
Look at this graph and tell me again how this was on Clinton.
Cory, what ever you are smoking, please share. I went into watching last nights debate thinking the president would DOMINATE Romney, when in fact, Romney did the dominating.
Clinton's fiscal policies caused the housing bubble. GW's tax cuts only increased the national debt. We can point fingers all day, but it does not matter whose fault it is. The facts are we take in far less than we spend and our debt is over $16 trillion. When interest rates return to their historic norms, we will be seriously screwed. What is 5% interest on $16 trillion? Our massive debt will even be higher in a couple of years. Neither candidate is facing facts. They are worried about a few cents here and a few cents there. We will need huge spending cuts as well as double digit increases in taxes even to make a dent in the deficit. That does nothing to pay down the debt, it only slows down the rate of its increase. Paul Ryan's budget isn't close to realistic. He doesn't go far enough. Our only hope to reduce the size of the debt is to have runaway inflation. The Fed is laying the groundwork for that by printing money.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows President Obama attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 47%."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
No, Michael, you are wrong. Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with the housing bubble, but his easy money policies as part of his big push for "culture of ownership" played a huge role.
DB, whatever you are snorting, you can keep it to yourself.
In the circular discussion on the housing bubble and housing crash...let's not let the craven greed of the banks go unnoticed.
Mortgage backed securities were a big part of the housing bubble and financial crisis. The underwriters didn't care if someone couldn't pay back the loan because they were getting sold off and bundled by wall street in to this investment product. It was just old fashioned greed. People in Florida were buying and selling condos for ever higher prices before they were even completed. No one had even lived in them yet. People should have realized it was unsustainable and something was deeply wrong.
I was disappointed with the President's showing during the debate. At the same time I was outraged by the lies that Romney told that were allowed to stand by the moderator, the President and the press in the immediate follow up after the debate.
I was also disappointed that immigration, women's health and civil rights weren't discussed.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-master.html
Romney impressed me with points he made on job creation and taxes. I won't vote for Mitt but he is passionate about his convictions and he is a fighter. Running for president is a lot like running a marathon. It is mile 20 and Mitt looks pretty good. I have a new respect and admiration for Mitt.
You are right about that, John. The Wall Street bank I worked for and my clients played a big role in that, too. It also played a big role in the undercapitalization of our banks as securitized assets were held off balance sheet prior to Dodd-Frank. I would say the Federal Reserve played a role in their decision to keep rates so low. So did Fannie and Freddie by funding IO and teaser rate loans, which was in direct collaboration with the "culture of ownership".
Robert, it seems everybody was most impressed by the way Romney sold an economic fallacy. It scares me to death that he believes it. As I said earlier, if we aren't creating jobs or growing the economy with the lowest tax rates in history, how could a rational person believe lower taxes are the answer to these problems? I guess if it is said in the right tone and with the right smile, people will believe anything. That's probably how Madoff pulled it off, too.
Justin,
The President is not beyond using a wink and smile to gain a vote. Romney's anecdotes about small businesses and taxes struck a cord in voters on the fence on the issue of job creation. Mitt probably persuaded quite a few undecided voters on that issue alone. I still won't vote for Mitt. The President needs to be better prepared. Romney's business savvy was apparent -he has more credibility than the President and it showed last night.
Just because people believed him doesn't mean he has more credibility. Dangerous lies are still dangerous lies. It seems most agree with your assessment that Obama wasn't prepared and Romney seemed believable. It doesn't change the fact that we have 30 years of data on his policies to study and that tax cuts will increase the deficit and do little to create jobs.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139926/-Romney-Won-Using-a-Debate-Technique-Called-the-Gish-Gallop
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-targets-romnes-debate-lies-ad-focusing-trust.html
Excerpts:
CNN’s David Gergen: “Romney was just sort of flat out lying.â€
Rachel Weiner â€@rachelweinerwp Fact Checker: Romney says “six other studies†have found his plan can be revenue neutral, but he’s wrong about that.
PolitiFact â€@politifact Obamacare is a government takeover of health care? That was the 2010 Lie of the Year.
Chicago Sun-Times: “If, however, you score Wednesday’s debate on substance — accurate facts and honest arithmetic — Obama more than held his own.â€
Michael Crowley â€@CrowleyTIME Romney closes with pretty dishonest warning about defense cuts
"There is nothing more damaging for a candidate than having their own words used against them. It proves that they are not trustworthy and no matter what the pundits say, trust and likeability matter at the polls. George W Bush came across as a decent guy; Mitt Romney does not. Romney is a serial liar, who seems to garner smug pleasure from getting away with it at the moment. Mitt Romney is only fooling himself and what is left of his base. Sure, he took some “Undecideds†last night, but how are those folks feeling this morning after Romney has been roundly taken to the woodshed for his lies?
Trust. You can’t buy it."
So, I guess he's the next President of The United States now. Ann is probably calling the White House today for the drape measurements.
" Romney is a serial liar, who seems to garner smug pleasure from getting away with it at the moment."
And his biggest lie: I am a conservative.
He's anything you want him to be, Sibby, if you know how to leverage enough votes. ;^)
If you are Sheldon Adelson he is a very expensive pardon that you already spent millions to defeat.
Jana,
You said ; "I was also disappointed that immigration, women's health and civil rights weren't discussed."
We have the highest level of immigration, the finest women's health and the most protected civil rights in the world. What should we discuss about them is my question to you Jana???
Charlie Hoffman
Romney/Ryan supporter.
Our very own Troy posted this on the new and improved War College:
"It is hilarious. For those weak-minded, Obama worshippers, they consider anything that questions their world-view as a lie.
In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, they can’t handle the truth."
So do any of my other 'weak minded' friends find Troy's use of a lying Colonel Nathan R. Jessep as his spokesperson...well...appropriate for a good Republican like Troy?
Nope!! Jana you are the only genius in our midst..............
Do you have any data to support your claims, Charlie?
I spent years watching Bill Janklow's leadership style. Essentially it was to speak forcefully, threaten or bully people without power in order to scare off opposition, do the bidding of the powerful, lie when necessary and disavow or deny reality when it's inconvenient. People of a certain mindset, pretty pathetic people in my view, ate that up. It's a quasi-fascist style of leadership that seems attractive to independent and conservative people who seek a strong leader.
I saw that sort of leadership style emerging with Romney last night. It's the kind of leadership that a CEO uses to ship jobs overseas and fire people. You could tell Romney was relishing picking on Big Bird and Jim Lehrer, as substitutes for kicking the 47 percent, which wouldn't have been politically astute. The big bully found his pulpit, and he wasn't going to be denied.
I learned by taking on Janklow on issues that the only way to defeat that sort of leader is to stand up to him with facts.
Obama needs to learn from this, and it looks like he's gone to school. Today in Madison, WI, he gave a speech which exposed Mitt's lies.
Yes, Jana, I considered reminding Troy that Jessep got court martialed, but then thought better of it. He's a smart guy. He'll figure it out.
So will Charlie ...right Charlie? LOL.
DR, I smoke nothing. Old Guy, I do not contend Obama won the debate. But Old Guy's assessment—no Fordian mistakes, lost some, but no game-changer—tells exactly why Obama wins the long game. He knows his margins. Just as in 2008, he knows which and how many counties he can afford to lose and still win the Electoral College majority. Still the dramatist, I want a dramatic Hollywood debate that plays like Armageddon. President Obama will never give us that debate. He'll just do what he needs to do to win... including perhaps playing Rope-a-Dope.
C'mon people (this includes Troy, Charlie, Cory, Bill, etc.)! Its not like debates don't matter, but if we judge by history, if we simply went by who won the debates, we would have Kerry, Perot, and Mondale administrations. Anyone remember those? I don't. Elections are fought on the ground. Did Obama give a load of bad optics last night? Sounds like it. I didn't watch. I (and many others I suspect), watched Netflix, Hulu, DVR'd programs, and a load of other stuff. Charlie and Troy can huff and puff, but really, after crapping away the women's vote, latino vote, and coming dangerously close to parity on the old folks vote, I suspect the game is already lost. We see what we want to see from these debates typically. Romney won more than likely, but he totally shifted away from who he has been campaining as these past, what, 12 months? How do you flip your campaign in 30 days? Guess we shall see.
@Justin
Data is simply a liberal plot.
President Obama probably read that brief, Q, and came to the same conclusion. He didn't need to try hard last night. He may not need to try hard in the coming two. But I sure wouldn't mind if he gave Joe Biden free rein to fire at will next Thursday!
@Q: ...or maybe a liberal scatterplot.
Sure Chuck...can I call you Chuck? (Ewww...that made me sound like Sarah Palin...but I think people like Chuck dig that kind of talk)
How about we start with these three topics:
Self deportation
Legitimate rape
Voter photo ID
Bill, you are probably right that once Troy got past his nipple twisting joy...oops sorry, just a flashback from the bad Adam Sandler Waterboy movie...he would have figured out that Jessep probably wasn't a good choice.
Mr. Pay, can you tell us more about taking on Janklow? That sounds very interesting. Way more interesting that talking about some TV show that was on last night.
Hey Chuck...me again.
Maybe I was too quick to judge. So maybe you could set me straight as I was just wondering where you got your information on a few things.
You said that the US has the highest level of immigration...I'm looking at the CIA factbook and it doesn't agree with you. Maybe you should talk to them and set them straight.
The finest women's health...oh please do tell where you grabbed this gem. Or is it just because you say it is. How about mortality rates? Preterm births? Women's choice on reproductive health? Tell you what Chuck, let's even expand it to all issue directly related to women. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/20/best-and-worst-countries-for-women-the-full-list.html
Civil rights. Get back to me on this one when you are done crafting anti religious (Sharia bogey man laws) and giving your endorsement for new Jim Crow laws on voter ID laws.
Thanks for getting back to us with what information you are making your claims on.
Check this little nugget out,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rB9Aa6qVauE
That Newt, what a guy. Even though the guy is a liar, Newt loves him the Mitt.
Jana, you feel a need to change my name to something comfortable for you; and hopefully demeaning to me???. (My grandmother called me Chucky.) Lets see now, you want to be able to suck a baby out of your womb at any time for any reason. Woman's rights you say!!!! Yeah, good for you. I call it murder, but then I'm no genius like you kiddo. Funny you mention the CIA factbook trusting verbage similarly published with whatever Obama calls Embassy Protection. Oh yeah , that was just a MOB killing ; no al Qaeda involved there. Yes we get that dear Jana Babes!! You trust the federal gov boys under O to tell the truth to us, US, right ; ;you are the genius home boy; not me for sure. OK , we get that , but O told us he would cut a trillion from our debt four years ago. Did you not watch his awesome Denver speech? He increased the debt by FOUR TRILLION. Oh, we don't talk about that now though do we Jana. Can I call you JJBlowHead; because you are smoking out both sides of you head here and all I can see is total incompetence on your part.
Oh and thank you for remembering my dear Grandmother Rosa Hoffman, my fathers mother; she was one of the most beautiful people I have ever met in the world. She loved the human spirit, came from humble roots, had money but nothing to buy in the dirty 30's, saved her wash and rinse water from the dishes to water her indoor Fern and the outside plants, fed the cats lettuce and bacon fat and lard; and they were mousers, (for you urbanites that would be cats who loved catching MICE), she also helped milk cows every morning with her husband, slopped pigs the leftover separater spoilings from making cream, pulled eggs off the chicken huts every day, fed my sorry ass more damn lard fryed eggs than any normal person could want, (and I still love butter swamped easy over eggs and bacon) and then My Dear Jana; watched her two children die before they turned 60 of cancer. Nothing I have ever witnessed up to this date has had a greater effect on my life. So Jana , please keep it real. You are boring me to death with your privy little self engaged preppy comments meant to hurt me.
tomatin tsunami, charlie?
At least you didn't threaten to fight her, Chuckles.
You are a man of chivalry after all.
If you cared at all about the national debt you wouldn't support further tax cuts costing $5 trillion and reject the cuts to the military budget requested by the joint chiefs amounting to hundreds of billions per year. You also wouldn't support repealing ACA at a cost of $100 billion.
I don't really care what you think about abortion. The 1st amendment says YOUR religion doesn't belong in OUR LAWS. Not to mention that the people of SD have twice voted down the abortion bans our supposed representatives like you tried to jam down our throats.
LOL Larry, actually blended tonight; Black Label!!
Justin only my son calls me Chuckles; DUDE!!!
Only my friends call me dude, Charlie. ;)
If your son calls you that, you must at least recognize it as the term of endearment it was.
Good lord, I do not remember ever seeing my friend the semi-colon so abused as it has been in C. Hoffman's Black Label ramblings.
RIP Semi-Colon; you are fondly remembered; for allowing goobers like myself and drunk typers like C. Hoffman construct run on sentences; that stretch on and on......
Easy Charlie!
Let's start over...cuz I don't remember bringing up your grandmother. Although she sounds a great deal like both of my grandmothers.
To recap:
I said that I was disappointed that immigration, women's health and civil rights weren't a part of the debate.
You replied that we had the highest immigration rates, the best women's health in the world and most protected civil rights in the world.
Then I questioned your proof with evidence from the CIA Factbook, a reference to global women's health among other things and then I got snarky with a reference to voter disenfranchisement and anti religious votes that seem to be popular among Republican lawmakers like yourself.
Then you got into the Black Label and wreaked a horrible abuse upon punctuation and called me babe among some other things. (I bet you say that to all the girls after a couple of belts.)
I know that you strive for decorum in blog comments and would never say anything inflammatory to anyone...so I will aspire to be just like you. (Which reminds me, just who is a part of the "Republican Brotherhood" that you speak of? Is that like a reference to the Muslim Brotherhood? Did you mean that to say that Republicans that you don't agree with are like Muslims?)
Republicans don't like facts to get in the way of their authority.
I watched the debate as well. Who won? Romney? Well,I suppose that he did,but only if you're silly enough to not see what a really bad liar that he is. Body language speaks volumes even if the words coming out of his mouth are lies.
President Obama may not have ripped Romney apart,but has anyone considered that Obama does not need to BS everyone? He spoke with detail about his plans if he is re-elected,he was civil,rational,and quite composed. Obama did not/does not need a teleprompter to answer questions about his beliefs,policies,and plans for the future of our great country...especially in a debate.
Romney may have gained some votes from some people,but is that gain enough for him to be elected the next POTUS? Who knows. We'll know the answer on election day.
Is Romney a true conservative or is he just telling some people what he thinks that they want to hear? Even if he hadn't acted with such disdain towards Obama with his smirks,and not really giving real details on his plans...there is no way that I would even consider voting for him.
The way that he and Ryan want to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid,his terrible disrespect for foreign leaders,and that whole disrespectful and insulting attitude for the "47%" of Americans disgusts me.
Let's be real here. If Mitt Romney is our next POTUS it's pretty much obvious that a great many Americans will not be able to afford to exist and I believe that Romney/Ryan will plunge us into WWIII,if not all out armageddon.
Obama is not a wuss. He shows respect to the leaders of other nations when he visits with them. Have some of you never considered that perhaps Obama is using the "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? Or maybe,just maybe,he is setting Romney up for a butt kicking when they debate again? Perhaps Obama was just giving Romney a bit more rope to hang himself with the blatant lying and acting like he actually cares about the common American citizen.
Oh yeah Charlie, I'm not that smart.
Heck, when Mitt Romney referred to the backdrop behind him he said it was the Constitution...and here I thought it was the Declaration of Independence. Guess I was wrong on that one.
Who knew that the words "endowed by their creator" and "we hold these truths to be self evident" were also in the Constitution. My bad.
Willard’s god is gold plated
Mitt’s loins never sated
If his hair weren’t on fire
Rove’s jowls light the pyre
Intelligence has just been degraded.
Vickie mentions body language; Dr. Newquist dismisses body language as a Rohrschach blot and makes other provocative observations in his latest blog post.
Good news. The jobless rate fell below 8%.