Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

Manchu wrote:Well, if I was ever going to get you to participate in a dialog in good faith, that was it. And it's come and gone. Thanks for clearing it up, though.

Manchu wrote:Well, if I was ever going to get you to participate in a dialog in good faith, that was it. And it's come and gone. Thanks for clearing it up, though.

Phanatik wrote:I think weiner dogs are really ferrets that fetch.

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.

Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.

I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.

Phanatik wrote:You must mean Sen. Reid

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.

Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.

I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...

You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.

To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.

Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.

Best,

Frazzled wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.

Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.

I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...

You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.

To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.

Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.

Best,

Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?

Phanatik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:Biccat: Oh please, the Republicans have't done anything constructive in the time they've had control fo the house.

Obama, at least, has TRIED, even if he was stonewalled by obstructionism. Hell he tried, repeatedly I should note, to compromise even to the point where he flat out offered Republican solutions to the problems with no democrat leanings and they STILL played obstructionist.

I don't agree with everything Obama's done, but he's still leagues and leagues above the Republican party in general because he's actually attempted to get something done.

Phanatik wrote:You see, McCarthy was right...

I think Phanatik might just be a liberal in disguise, trying to make conservatives look bad...

You must mean Sen. Reid refusing to bring measures up for a vote, or using procedures to stop votes. Yeah, thats obstructionism.

To say the republicans haven't done anything constructive is ridiculous.

Giving multitudes of useless speeches isn't "doing something."
The only thing that has improved since Obummer got in office is his golf game.

Best,

Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?

Well, I've refused to fly since the stupid airport security rules were put in place.

BrassScorpion wrote:More Bill Maher on the topic

BrassScorpion wrote:More Bill Maher on the topic

Phanatik wrote: Well, I've refused to fly since the stupid airport security rules were put in place.

Mitt Romney went to Fairfax, Virginia, today, where he assured them, repeatedly, that he loves America and he loves the people of America. Also, he loves Ohio's unpopular union-stripping bill, the one he said he didn't know much about yesterday..

Questioner: What do you say to Governor Perry and others who criticized you yesterday for not taking a position on the collective bargaining rights bill in Ohio?

Romney: Oh, I'm sorry if I created any confusion in that regard. I fully support Governor Kasich's – I think it’s called Question 2, in Ohio – fully support that.

It's hard to know exactly what this says about Mr. Romney or his campaign, since he said he wouldn't endorse the union-stripping bill while at a phone bank for the union-stripping bill, and since, as he acknowledged today, endorsed the union-stripping bill months before. But Mr. Romney didn't stop there:

"But what I was referring to is, I know there are other ballot questions there in Ohio, and I wasn't taking a position on those. One of them, for instance, relates to health care and mandates. I've said that should be up to individual states. I, of course, took my state in one direction. They may want to go in a different direction. I don't want to tell them what I think they ought to do in that regard – that's up to them. So it was with regards to that issue, that I didn't want to make a commitment."

So on Wednesday, it's one ballot issue that he won't take a stand on, the very tricky (for him) question of health reform. Tuesday:

Great to be here in Ohio today. I'm not speaking about the particular ballot issues. Those are up to the people of Ohio. . . . I'm not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives.

So when Mr. Romney said "issues" and "those" and "are" and "two," that was the rhetorical plural.

d-usa wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

sebster wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.

Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...

The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.

Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.

Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.

Where does Ron Paul fit into this?

And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.

sebster wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.

Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.

sebster wrote:

d-usa wrote:Where does Ron Paul fit into this?

He continues to win votes from a small and highly confused minority of voters, same as he always has. He'll rally them together for the odd straw poll, and continue to pick up single digit votes in every general poll.

And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".

The swing voters matter, somewhat, but the bigger issue is convincing your side to get out and vote. Whoever the Republican candidate is, the trick will be keeping the various collections of Republican groups sufficiently happy that they'll show up to vote in big numbers. This means getting keeping up credibility on about a dozen little issues all at once, especially when those issues are often contradictory.

For Obama, this will involve convincing voters to bother at all, given the general state of the economy and failure to deliver on what voters thought he was going to deliver.

Coulter wrote:In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives

Frazzled wrote:
Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. WE now have thousands of hand held SAMs missiing from Libya. That has to be good right?

biccat wrote:
Well, I'm not someone who hides behind a veil of authority to take cheap shots at other posters. Not that you are, mind.

biccat wrote:
While that may be what you intended, your comment was not to that "effect." The effect of your comment was to imply Republican agreement with your distorted view of Gov. Romney.

biccat wrote:
While you may be able to perform the convoluded mental gymnastics to "correlate facts with intentions" of other posters, please try to tone down the great leaps of blind faith so that the rest of us mere mortals can keep up.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is claiming that Mitt Romney “OKd health care for illegal immigrants” by signing Massachusetts’ 2006 health care overhaul law. But the law didn’t give illegal immigrants anything new. It merely continued and renamed a state program that had long allowed low-income, uninsured residents, including those in the country illegally, to get care at community health centers and (as in all other states) hospital emergency rooms.

Perry’s campaign seized on an Oct. 23 Los Angeles Times story that said the law Romney signed “includes a program known as the Health Safety Net, which allows undocumented immigrants to get needed medical care along with others who lack insurance.” The Times noted that the Health Safety Net “built on a previous program.” But the story did not make clear that the old program, called the Uncompensated Care Pool, did not treat illegal immigrants any differently than the newly named Health Safety Net.

We spoke with two former commissioners of the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, which oversees the hospital reimbursement program — one official under the Romney administration and one under current Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration — and both told us there is no difference between the pre-health care law program and post-law program as it relates to illegal immigrants.

Romney has made Perry’s treatment of illegal immigrants a major issue in the presidential campaign. He has been hammering Perry for allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Texas colleges. In the Oct. 18 debate, the former Massachusetts governor made the shaky claim that the program was a “magnet to draw illegals into the state.”

Now, Perry is criticizing Romney for the health care law that he signed in 2006. Perry’s website, however, falsely claims that “Romneycare – includes provisions that allow illegal immigrants to receive full health benefits for free,” according to the Los Angeles Times. That goes well beyond what the newspaper said, and that’s not what the law does. Instead, low-income uninsured people can get necessary health care at hospitals — just as they can in any other state — or, in Massachusetts, in community health centers, and those institutions can receive reimbursement through the state program, which is funded largely by an assessment on hospitals and insurers.

Sarah Iselin, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, was the commissioner of the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy from 2007 to 2009. She told us there were no substantive changes in the way the Health Safety Net versus the old Uncompensated Care Pool affected illegal immigrants. The state health care law did add “much stronger accountability provisions” to the safety net, and it required hospitals and community health centers to screen for eligibility for Medicaid or subsidized insurance through the new state exchange, she says.

But “absolutely” care for illegal immigrants was paid for by the Uncompensated Care Pool, just as it is now by the Health Safety Net, Iselin says.

Amy Lischko, an associate professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, was commissioner of the DHCFP during the Romney administration. She also confirmed, via email, that there’s no difference between the Uncompensated Care Pool and the Health Safety Net concerning illegal immigrants. “Several changes were made to the Health Safety Net beginning in 2008,” she says. But not as it relates to immigrants. Changes were made to the payment system — the new one is “based on Medicare principles” and does away with the old “block grant” payments to hospitals — and, as Iselin mentioned, “new program integrity features were added to ensure that people were enrolled into the coverage they were eligible for before they were permitted to use the Health Safety Net,” says Lischko, who is also a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Massachusetts.

And, of course, the name was changed. But the program existed long before Romney took office.

“The Uncompensated Care Pool goes back to the 1980s,” Brian Rosman, research director for the advocacy group Health Care for All, told us via email. “The HSN is the same thing, with a new name.” In a phone interview, Rosman said his colleagues still refer to it as “the pool.” Health Care for All posted a blog item on the Times‘ story, adding context on the Health Safety Net.

The situation is similar in other states. “Every state, even Texas, has programs that acknowledge people show up for care,” Iselin says. “Hospitals have obligations under federal law to take care of people when they show up with a broken leg” or other ailments. “You can’t leave hospitals holding the bag.”

In Texas, public hospital districts provide care for illegal immigrants, and the Texas Emergency Medicaid program pays hospitals for providing emergency care.

In Massachusetts, the safety net program also reimburses community health centers. It’s not free health insurance for the people seeking care; rather, it’s payment for the hospitals and health centers that provide treatment. “This is a program for financing care that many of these institutions, either by virtue of their nonprofit mission or federal law, have to provide,” Iselin says.

Iselin, Lischko and Rosman all told us that, overall, the Massachusetts health care law didn’t give anything new to illegal immigrants that they didn’t have before.

The Romney campaign has responded to this issue by blaming Romney’s successor, Gov. Patrick. Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told MSNBC: “To the extent that illegals are receiving some kind of care under the Health Safety Net program, that would be a function of what the current governor, Deval Patrick, has put into place.” He noted, correctly, that federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of immigration status. But Massachusetts’ program, which was highlighted in 2004 by the Commonwealth Fund as one of several innovative state programs, allows access to care at hospitals and at community health centers, where it’s often cheaper, and it was started in 1985.

Fehrnstrom, MSNBC, Oct. 24: There’s nothing in the law that permits illegal immigrants to receive care that they’re not entitled to. Now, federal law requires that illegal immigrants get care in emergency settings. If they’re getting anything beyond that, that would be because of rules that were written by Deval Patrick, not by Mitt Romney.

Iselin and Lischko told us that there were no changes made by Patrick that gave illegal immigrants more benefits. Says Iselin: “As it related to how we treated undocumented folks in terms of the eligibility to get care [that was] billed to this program, we didn’t make any changes. None.”

Lischko says the Patrick administration “could have promulgated regulations that restricted care more.” But no regulations were written that would give illegal immigrants additional benefits. “Changes were made, true, but the program is more or less the same as it was before the reform.”

There isn’t solid information on how many illegal immigrants may in fact receive medical care paid for by the safety net, says Lischko. “The program has always garnered attention in the state since a bulk of the funding comes from insurers and providers,” she says. “There is not a lot of state funding in the safety net.”

Rosman doesn’t recall any major debate over whether the pool should continue to cover care for illegal immigrants when the legislation was being written. “It was part of the landscape here,” he says.

– Lori Robertson

Melissia wrote:For Obama it is probably something along the lines of listing things he's attempted to do and pointing out the successes and the Republican obstructionism that caused most of the failures, with the insinuation that the Republicans ahve no real sane ideas of their own so they just say no to everyone else's. So vote for Obama and the democrats because they actually has a plan yada yada yada.

Dunno if the public would buy that, but playing up the obstructionist tactics of the past couple years seems a good idea for him regardless.

Frazzled wrote:Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.

chaos0xomega wrote:Did you miss the part where he served in the US military? Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.

I think the issue is more he just doesn't have the money to do it. He's a Washington outsider, Obama basically killed his chances of taking the presidency by posting him in China and thus marginalizing him/eliminating any chance of pre-election familiarity he might have with the voter base. Plus, he doesn't have the financial backing of the other major players right now, which limits the face time he gets.

A Republican candidate doesn't need the social conservatives to carry an election. This is a fallacy that has dominated Republican thinking. Huntsman could easily win by carrying the vote of the rest of the people in this country that aren't psychotic christian fundamentalists.

You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.

Moderate Republicans are more or less interchangeable with moderate Democrats. It's only on the fringes you see real differences between the two sides.

Of course, the Republicans are moving increasingly to a fringe only party and dumping their moderates, which is one cause for Huntsman's poor election result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Er...thats wrong. You're thinking the Libertarian Party.
The Tea Party is saying 1) balance the budget 2) small government works best.

... that's the point. Follow the smaller and smaller government until freedom line far enough, and you end up with Somalia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:2. You've just effectively inferred Treason. Please pray tell how they've committed Treason.

Are you actually, honest to God, going to sit there and claim you've read nothing about Republican statements that will obstruct government purely for the purpose of obstructing government?

Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:It's odd that you feel that the operation of the government could have any beneficial affect upon the economy.

Yes, if only we got rid of government enforced property laws and government backing for contractual agreements then we'd really get the economy pumping along. Oh wait that's stupid.

A blast from the past?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

As long as we're going to pretend fantastical nonsense from ridiculous moral panics of decades gone by are relevant, isn't it more fun to go with this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes_and_Monsters


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:So, lets see, ...
1. McCarthy says there are communists in the government
2. There are communists in the government
3. Saying so makes one....what?

You're pretending that McCarthy's only position was to simply claim there were communists in government. Instead, McCarthy used the fear to conduct witch hunts on entirely loyal servants of government, to build his own power base and feed his ego.

At no point was any evidence of any plot to actually threaten the US uncovered by any of McCarthy's efforts. When you ruin the lives of innocent people for nothing but personal gain and an ego boost, you're a bad guy.

Just because he had an R after his name doesn't mean you have to invent a fantasy justifying him. Even football groupies can admit that not every player they've ever had was the best. Why can't political groupies do the same?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:Charisma was what mattered in 08. In next year's 2nd term election it's the economy that will matter the most. Swing voters want to get rid of Obama, but they are not going to vote for a right wing lunatic instead. Next year is going to be one of those rare years where the election can be won with a charisma gap, I don't think it will matter in the general election this year. On the other hand Huntsman's failure to tell the far right what they want to hear is why he is hanging out at 3%

Charisma isn't a thing that sometimes matters and sometimes doesn't. You don't see polls asking people what they want out of a president, with 24% saying 'strong economic credentials' and 14% saying 'charisma'. Charisma is what gets people to listen to what you're saying, and get them to believe what you're saying is part of the solution.

Jobs are important. Whoever gets the nomination will have to convince

Social conservatives are now convinced Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Communist Socialist Fascist Hippie that wants to turn their children gay and convert aMerika to Sharia law. The republican party doesn't need to energize the base this year to win the election, the base is about as energized as it can possibly get.

It was pretty crazily energised in 2008 as well. Back then the issues about Obama's socialism, real secret muslim roots and all the impending gun control he was about to bring in. Despite that, McCain had real problems getting the base out to vote, hence Palin as VP.

Ron Paul supporters are consistent and I would not call them confused.

Not politically confused. Politically they're about as certain as anyone that they know how to fix everything. They're confused because their proposals are ridiculous.

Which is why the election is the GOP's election to lose. All they need to do is go with the anti Romney vote and give the primary to Herman Cain.

Which is great in theory, and less great when the practical application is Herman Cain.

sebster wrote:

Why does military service give you a free pass on saying something stupid?

If he had better numbers, he'd have more money. Cain started with hardly any money either, but he's managed to use the debates to capture support, and the money has come from there.

I wish that were true, but it isn't. Don't just look at what portion of the population identifies as social conservative, also look at what portion turns out to vote.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Says the guy in Australia? The Republican party DOES NOT NEED TO CARRY THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE VOTE TO WIN AN ELECTION.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is part of the reason why the primary system is flawed, let alone the fact that it has no place in our government and shouldn't exist, period.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats so stupid about someone expressing dissatisfaction with something and stating that they would move to another country?

If, say, an Occupy protester were to say the same thing, would you take it seriously?

Several studies have shown that about 30% of the electorate is socially and fiscally conservative. That's an awfully large chunk of voters to ignore in lieu of competing with the Democrats directly for independents, particularly given that people who are conservatives in both respects turn out at a higher rate.

I mean, I guess the GOP doesn't need to carry the social conservative vote in order to win, but in the real world doing so means an almost certain loss.

Since all but a few democracies in the world have political parties, and even the ones that don't have them have similar systems of stratification in place, its likely that political parties are close to a natural result of democratic governance as one can come.