Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 12:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

JPB wrote:

Yep re Grover Norquist

My second biggest problem with Bush was signing a non-funded part D Medicare bill.


The biggest problem with Bush was him forgetting Bin Laden and saying that catching the guy 'didn't matter.'

Cycloptichorn


Pray tell, why did it matter?


You should ask Bush that question - he made it our highest priority when launching the war in Afghanistan and repeatedly claimed we would 'stop at nothing' to get the guy.

Sure changed his story quick when the whole Iraq thing got wound up, though, dinne?

Cycloptichorn


I am the wrong person to point out your point above. I voted for all the Bushes. I give any Bush all the slack needed to run the nation. I have a big heart for Republicans, since they oftentimes subscribe to American Exceptionalism.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 02:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Obviously, no one could vote for Romney on principle. One could vote for Obama on principle


nobody with principles would ever vote for a politician
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 02:24 pm
Quote:
In March, Mitt Romney demanded “President Obama needs to level with the American public about his real agenda.” But on numerous topics, Romney has refused to answer basic questions about his views, leaving voters to guess at where he stands on important issues. Romney’s ambiguity appears to be a calculated strategy to avoid alienating the conservative base or moderate swing voters. If he’s successful in avoiding articulating policy positions, he can market himself as the “generic Republican” alternative to President Obama.

Here are seven major issues on which Romney has refused to take a stand:


1. Romney won’t say whether he would undo Obama’s decision to end deportations of DREAM-eligible immigrants. Romney and his campaign passed up numerous opportunities over the weekend to say whether he agreed with the substance of the Obama administration’s order to stop deporting some young undocumented immigrants and whether a President Romney would rescind the order, saying only, “We’ll look at that — we’ll look at that setting as we– as we reach that.”

2. Romney won’t say whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Romney repeatedly dodged questions about whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to crack down on wage discrimination and close the wage gap between men and women. His campaign didn’t respond to five requests by the conservative Washington Times seeking his stance on the bill.

3. Romney won’t specify which tax loopholes he’d close. Asked yesterday which tax deductions he would eliminate to offset his massive proposed tax-cuts for the rich, Romney refused to offer any specifics on a plan that he has admitted is so vague it cannot even be scored, saying only, “We’ll go through that process with Congress.”

4. Romney won’t say which federal agencies he’d eliminate. At a private fundraiser, Romney reportedly told donors he would eliminate or combine “a lot of departments in Washington,” but that he was “probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go.” Why? Because he feared telling the voters his plans before the election might hurt his political chances, just as it did in his 1994 Senate race.

5. Romney won’t say whether he supports the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney’s campaign refused to say whether he would have signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that helps women hold employers accountable for discriminating in the pay practices based on gender. Romney said, “I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed.”

6. Romney won’t say whether he’d support full reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Offering only general support for renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, Romney would not specify whether he supported the bipartisan Senate version or the GOP House rolllback bill. His spokeswoman said only that he “hopes [the bill] can be reauthorized without turning it into a political football.”

7. Romney won’t say whether say whether he’d eliminate the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners. Romney’s campaign has refused to answer questions about whether he supports eliminating the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners, even when asked directly, saying only that we should probably “take a close look at to see if we’re treating capital gains as capital gains or are we treating, in some cases, carried interest as capital gains when it’s more like ordinary income.”

Whether or not Romney can continue to campaign while avoiding taking a position on so many important issues depends on the how the media reacts. There are dozens of reporters following Romney every day. They can choose to either give him a pass on these important policy issues or continue asking him until he provides an answer.


links embedded at the source

update:Romney Responds To Supreme Court Ruling On Arizona’s Immigration Law, Doesn’t Say If He Agrees With The Decision
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 03:52 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Obviously, no one could vote for Romney on principle. One could vote for Obama on principle


nobody with principles would ever vote for a politician


Just a little extreme position, wouldn't you say? I mean, you're saying none of the hundreds of millions of folks who vote have principles.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 07:25 am
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/382545_428642817180706_409403865_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 10:02 am
Now the news is that Romney is considering a woman as VP. Is this just a ploy to tantalize women voters? Perhaps. Did he learn anything from McCain's pick last time, probably not. It wasn't that Sarah was a woman, it was that she was woefully unable to serve as POTUS if necessary. Will Mitt make the same mistake? Nikki Haley? Heaven help us. I will give her some credit. She has pissed off a lot of the 'good ole boys' here in SC. It's such a shame that these political decisions have only the electability aspect considered.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 10:06 am
@IRFRANK,
I think it is Condi Rice which could be problematic, except for the fact that she was part of the whole Iraq pushing crowd and the hearts and minds that need to be won now is independents who mostly were strongly against the Iraq war.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 10:49 am
@revelette,
Condi Rice would be an interesting choice. It would be interesting to see what the racist wing of the Republican party would do. She is certainly smart enough, while I don't agree with some of her politics, she is capable. I personally think, after hearing some of her comments, she got railroaded on the Iraq thing. As a country, we were in the mood for war. I feel the same way about Colin Powell, but he was smart enough to not get involved with a presidential bid.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 11:01 am
@IRFRANK,
If you are right and Condi Rice was just railroaded into the whole Iraq war mongering, then she will be railroaded into other bad ideas as well. Personally I don't think she is so easily led.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/elections/freedomessay/images/p41953-853-398h.jpg

President George W. Bush wrote, "Let Freedom Reign" in response to a note passed to him by Dr. Condoleezza Rice while attending the opening session of a NATO summit June 28, 2004, in Istanbul, Turkey

source
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 11:08 am
Quote:
June 26, 2012 8:06 AM

(CBS News) Condoleezza Rice is not interested in being Mitt Romney's running mate.

In an interview with "CBS This Morning," the former secretary of state said, "There is no way that I will do this," when asked if she would accept a position as the No. 2 on this year's Republican presidential ticket.

"Charlie, I didn't run for student council president. I don't see myself in any way in elected office. I love policy. I'm not particularly fond of politics," she told host Charlie Rose, adding that she thinks Romney has "terrific judgment."

Pressed on whether she would turn it down if asked, she said, "I'm saying there is no way that I will do this, because it's really not me. I know my strengths, and governor Romney needs to find someone who wants to run with him."

"There are many people who will do it very, very well, and I'll support the ticket," she said.


source

Condoleezza Rice for vice president? Nope.

A good article explaining why Condoleezzza Rice woud not accept or Romney would not ask her for VP. But people still persist in the rumor, saw it again today somewhere on the internet which is why I posted her name. Can't find it though.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 11:13 am
@revelette,
She doesn't want it? That's not a bad recommendation to my way of thinking.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 11:14 am
@roger,
Your probably right, but I guess you have to want it to do it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 11:19 am
@revelette,
Does anyone else think that "how can Freedom reign?" would make a delightful kōan?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 07:04 pm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZbffXUztt1c/T_SbBOAK49I/AAAAAAAALGU/PiOKj4ccpOo/s1600/imagesCAGZD4H6.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2012 07:28 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
she told host Charlie Rose, adding that she thinks Romney has "terrific judgment."


Yeah, right, Condo. Who did you serve under again? Your judgement ain't worth spit.
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 08:25 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
she told host Charlie Rose, adding that she thinks Romney has "terrific judgment."


Yeah, right, Condo. Who did you serve under again? Your judgement ain't worth spit.


If I didn't know better, I would guess that you want to be an American. Then your diatribes would have more credence. Otherwise, it just sounds like sour grapes, in my opinion.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 09:37 pm
@Foofie,
You're Foofie, the master of foofieisms. You don't know much save for obeisance to continued bands of terrorists/war criminals.
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2012 04:48 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Since there doesn't seem to be a thread dedicated solely to discussing Romney's candidacy, pro & con....

To start things off, here's an article about him refusing to state his position on repealing the immigration policy Obama just enacted - I think it is a good example of Romney's spinelessness:

“But would you repealed (sic) this?” Schieffer pressed.

“Well, it would be overtaken by events, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation that creates law that relates to these individuals such that they no what their setting is going to be,” Romney explained.

“I don’t want keep on about this, but just to make sure I understand, would you leave this in place while you work out a long-term solution or would you just repeal it?” the CBS host asked again.

“We’ll look at that setting as we reach that,” Romney insisted...


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/17/romney-refuses-to-say-if-he-would-undo-obamas-immigration-policy/





Romney is spineless alright, Norquist made fun of him on TV and Romney let him get away with it. Not one word of protest.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2012 06:45 pm
There is a demographic with whom Romney has the definite advantage....


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ajN1wEa1TK8/T-49TrKVvdI/AAAAAAAALDI/yULoMQcVu3Q/s1600/Moron.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 11:52 am
Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion

We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.

And we wish to note, we’re not alone in this judgement. Others include:

Fortune’s Dan Primack — who covers Wall Street “deals and dealmakers” — addressed the Mother Jones reporting in a July 2 article that came to the same conclusion we do. Primack’s more recent reporting we’ve already noted.
The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, rebutted the Boston Globe story in a July 12 piece. “Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role,” Kessler writes. We agree.
Before the Globe story broke, the Columbia Journalism Review’s Brendan Nyhan stated: “[T]he specific cases cited by the Obama campaign largely concern actions taken by those companies during a period in which Romney was not making operational decisions at the firm. Journalists must be clear about this distinction.” After the Globe story, CJR’s Greg Marx wrote “there’s less new in the Globe article than the attention it has drawn suggests.”
ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reported July 12, after the Globe‘s story appeared: “Team Obama does not provide any specific evidence to back up claims that Romney was actively managing Bain between 1999 and 2002.”


More at link. I sure hope you guys can get your panties unwadded over this. Either that or you complain about about how factcheck doesn't check facts or that you are smarter then they are or whatever. Case closed, move on to next derogatory gimmick to use against Romney, this one is toast.
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 07:51:59