193 posts
BINGEWOOD — Aug 22, 2012Noice!!!!! Insults minus a point of view. Familiar tactic...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-under-his-health-care-law-those-/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/barack-obama/health-insurance-through-work-stays-place-under-re/
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jul/16/eric-cantor/cantor-says-under-health-care-law-people-who-their/
Getting back to flawed logic: "I also know if it were the repubs that lied and manipulated America to get this passed, you'd be pretty much against it."
America wasn't lied to and manipulated to get it passed, tho we were lied to and manipulated during the sausage making and the lies keep flying from the pubs, of course. The American people don't get to vote on nor create any piece of legislation.
What are all those sources for? What point do they make? The ad populum fallacy.
I just showed you a lie. Whats wrong with you? Did I ever suggest that we were lied to because we can't vote on the healthcare bill, or law? No. So, what point does that make?
Fenderbender — Aug 22, 2012[quote author=Hookbender link=1342042977/125#143 date=1345584868]"Obama addressed the nation on June 28, shortly after the Supreme Court revealed its ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In his comments, he quickly repeated one of his favorite, if false, talking points."
"Obama, June 28: If youre one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."
OK. I'll point it out to ya. Pay attention now. See the word false, 1st paragraph, third word from last? then the second paragraph is the actual lie quoted for you. Remember Obama saying this was not a tax? It fucking is a tax. Remember Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relation with that girl? Not sure that isn't true. Sticking a cigar in a cunt, especially if lit, probably wouldn't qualify as "sex" to most folks. ;D ;D And yeah, where are the wmds in Iraq? Although many other countries thought their was as well. Ahhh, they don't count....
It's not a tax. I don't see how you get from, "Keep your own insurance if you want" to "See that's a tax"
At best you can say that IF you don't want the governments plan and you want your own, but you still have to pay taxes to cover anything a government does spending wise......well duh.
Healthcare is only FREE in the sense that you shouldn't have to worry about inflating premiums and yeah you'd have to pay a tax to cover services. You DON'T have to keep your insurance. You can get on the government plan and then your "tax" money would be paying for your plan and you wouldn't feel like you're paying for your insurance and the insurance of others.
Well, go read the judges decision and get back to me. Then you'll have a better understanding.
Hookbender — Aug 20, 2012Trip
Nope. No, no, no. Don't give me that bullshit criticism as if your so much more intelligent than anyone. Stick that up your ass.
And this sugarcoated liberal slanted view you have shines through again. If your gonna ignore the facts of the matter thats fine. I really don't care. Your entire post is pretty much bullshit.
Let me quote ol' Bertram: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
Hint: You're not the clever man.
Sorry to be mean, but you keep posting like you know something, and it's pretty clear to EVERYONE ELSE that your logic is FUCKED and you don't understand what we're saying.
Tripper
OK. ;D ;D
So, you mean if I give an opinion, with no sources, or if I give evidence of what my opinion is.... either way if you disagree with me I'm stupid and my logic is fucked. I got it now. ;D ;D
If my logic is fucked, tell me where it's off. Show me.
This discussion isn't about the subject of logic or critical thinking, it's about Obama lying about the healthcare law. Doesn't take much logic to come to a conclusion on that point.
Ad Hominem Attacks aren't quite logically sound. ;)
Hookbender — Aug 23, 2012OK. ;D ;D
So, you mean if I give an opinion, with no sources, or if I give evidence of what my opinion is.... either way if you disagree with me I'm stupid and my logic is fucked. I got it now. ;D ;D
If my logic is fucked, tell me where it's off. Show me.
Already did. Repeatedly. As did charger, Bingewood and FB. Re-read this thread. I explained to you where you were getting it wrong and where you were falling into the right-wing traps. You even said "Obama passed the law" - how can you expect us to have any respect for your opinion when you don't even seem to understand how government works? You apparently have a fourth-grade political science education, and have forgotten most of it, with the blanks filled in by the anti-anything-Obama-does idiot parade. Do you believe that the ACA will kill Grandma? That's what Republicans were saying when there was no such language in the bill. Who was lying? It wasn't the President.
This discussion isn't about the subject of logic or critical thinking, it's about Obama lying about the healthcare law. Doesn't take much logic to come to a conclusion on that point.
Nope, just proof that it's a lie. You haven't done that. You've just CALLED it a lie based on your opinion of what people AROUND the President have said, like you've done with about a million other things...
Ad Hominem Attacks aren't quite logically sound. ;)
I realize that. But when we've shown you repeatedly where your logic is fucked, and you ignore us, so that's all we've got left.
It's pretty sad, actually. :(
Tripper
Trip
OK. I'll go back and re-read the thread. Only because I respect your opinion and you as a person. But this wasn't a debate type discussion imo until now. I realize that isn't an excuse for a lack of logical opinions, but there is no rule that sources and evidence be supplied for every fucking opinion ever stated by anyone on any forum must be followed. Most of this is old news anyway and if your up on politics you should know what happened and what Obama's role in getting this healthcare law passed was. I'll do that asap then respond to your post.
By the way, I respect FB and Charger as well.
Hookbender — Aug 24, 2012Trip
OK. I'll go back and re-read the thread. Only because I respect your opinion and you as a person. But this wasn't a debate type discussion imo until now. I realize that isn't an excuse for a lack of logical opinions, but there is no rule that sources and evidence be supplied for every fucking opinion ever stated by anyone on any forum must be followed. Most of this is old news anyway and if your up on politics you should know what happened and what Obama's role in getting this healthcare law passed was. I'll do that asap then respond to your post.
By the way, I respect FB and Charger as well.
Here's the thing. When you make any claim you must bet damn well ready to back it up. How do you back up any claim? Proof and evidence. This is common discourse of course that unfortunately is lost to a vast amount of people in the world, whom would rather spout off some talking point AS IF it were factual because they heard "some guy" say it. Alright, then where is that guys proof. IF end up with a regression that you must carry out all the way to the truth. Unfortunately, many folks do not have the intestinal fortitude to do such a task and as a result they never really know a truth. Instead, they are content with a half truth or some ignorant lie that they themselves have made real to themselves through an elaborate justification system.
BTW I respect you also. You may spout off at the mouth from time to time, but at least you are man enough to admit when you are wrong generally, and at least you are open enough to re-examine the case. There may be hope for you yet! ;) ;D
Yeah. My goddamn mouth. Sometimes I wish I couldn't talk. In real life also. ;D ;D
Look. Here's the thing.
The wrong part on my part is not looking farther than the statement. Statements in politics don't mean shit. Not really. And if they do mean something, it's meaning is much more involved than a one sentence statement and means way more than the surface exposes. Thinking about it more, I can see that. Now.
However, these fuckers do lie like a woman whore or my ex wife. And that's a sad thing. How the fuck can anyone expect a country to get better if the lies and money run it? It's kinda scary.
Now, my logic isn't that far off to defend myself a tad here. I just have a problem of taking politicians at their word until they prove to me they are..... just another politician. And they usually do. And, Obama has.
These fuckers, Romney and Obama are fucking shit bags. So is congress, and the senate, and anyone involved in politics. I guess I must just forget about the Long Ranger coming in on his big white horse and saving the world....which in politics seems to be to start with, truthful information and achievable goals for the most part.
But you can't tell me my logic is fucked for taking a person's word, seeing he didn't do what he said, and calling a spade a spade. That's not bad logic. All this bad logic shit and needing to brush up on critical thing skills is, bullshit. What's bad, is I am now seeing how big a fuck mat game politics in this country is. Not sure truth in politics even exist anymore. I didn't say anything way off base in this entire thread. I didn't even make any real claims that anyone here doesn't no is the truth.
This entire thread is me talking about politicians lying. And they do. I don't give a fuck if you like Obama or like him better than Romney, he's a lying fuck just like the rest of the bastards. They all lie. Obama just happens to be head lier in charge, right now. He's the topic of discussion because he is President.
I see a thread of excuses for Obama instead of the demand for better people in politics. Better "truth". Tripper said Obama made a bad prediction and he can't predict the future. I understand that. But the vast majority don't. And they will not bother to get involved enough to know what he is really saying. It's a game. A very smart game. Very deceiving and calculated. And thought out. I'm sick of that shit. That's why I'm so hard on what these fuckers say to the public who won't ever know what the fuck the saying means.
If the penalties are penalties you pay or a tax makes very little difference really. It's got to be paid one way or the other. It's the goddamn lies. Why can't these fuckers just tell it like it is? Is this healthcare shit gonna be any different? We already pay shit loads of money for people who go to the hospital for care and have no money. We can't turn them away. So, now, we are just budgeting in those cost and calling it preventative care, kinda? We are giving the government another excuse to raise another tax, right? The penalties have been ruled a tax and health care cost go up every year. So, why wouldn't the tax? We are adding shit loads of people to this program.
I don't think anyone has any idea what this will cost "tax payer" down the road. I don't believe their predictions good or bad. When we basically have open borders this shit could kill us as a country. It's really putting the cart before the horse.
It would be really nice if we really knew what being a conservative or liberal means today. If the bulk of America knew.
I'll chose to continue to be sort of a centrist leaning some towards the conservative of olds motto of small government, less spending, strong military, while open to helping as many people as possible along the way. Even though conservatives never do what they say, I like the the idea.
My employer's switched my healthcare plan already three times in 5 years. It happens.
Bottom line-- presidents have been promising some sort of meaningful reform of healthcare for 80 years, Obama got it done. In the last 10 years helathcare costs have been rising faster than any other costs of anything in society, bar none. The simple fact that insurers have to spend 80% of premiums on actual healthcare is a huge change.
And with health care cost going up so much, surely the "tax" will as well as the cost of this change. It would be great to see this thing be successful at all levels. I just don't think there is a chance of that being the case. Like maybe a 5% chance at best.
Sorry I was kind of a dick in the end part of the thread, Hook. I just was so tired of you making unfounded statements over and over and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Your behavior was very "Republican" in the modern sense, and I had previously thought you were into learning things and basing your beliefs on evidence and reality.
After I asked you to re-read the thread, I re-read it again just to be sure I was remembering things correctly. And to be honest, I didn't think my posts were unfair until late in this thread (hence the previous apology).
I understand that you consider the predictions made by Obama's team "lies" but I don't think even they anticipated how little the banks would lend and how hard Republicans would block their efforts to improve things.
I'm not an Obama apologist, no matter what you think...I think he's fucked up a lot of shit. I also think he's done some really good stuff. I don't see a world where Romney could do anything but fuck shit up. His foreign policy experience is nonexistent, his domestic policy ideas all cater to the billionaires and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be harmful to the middle class, and his social and civil rights positions are straight out of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell playbook (and you'd think he'd have more sense than that...).
So there's really no choice here if you are a rational person who even has a cursory understanding of how to reasonably govern a country (or at least what you'd like to see). Barack Obama and Joe Biden are in every way a better idea for this country than changing to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Anyone who supports Romney-Ryan are either ignorant, racist, old, or very rich. Or a delicious combination of those four things. :)
Tripper
On lying... check out Politifact, where they have conveniently categorized pretty much every statement by a politician into truth and lies in various shades... who's more truthful?
Romney
True (16%)
Mostly True (13%)
Half True (28%)
Mostly False (17%)
False (17%)
Pants on Fire (9%)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
Obama
True (23%)
Mostly True (23%)
Half True (25%)
Mostly False (12%)
False (14%)
Pants on Fire (1%)
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
Yeah, thanks for making my point for me. Maybe this will suffice as evidence for Tripper. ;D Thats been my point the entire damn thread.
Tripper — Aug 28, 2012Sorry I was kind of a dick in the end part of the thread, Hook. I just was so tired of you making unfounded statements over and over and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Your behavior was very "Republican" in the modern sense, and I had previously thought you were into learning things and basing your beliefs on evidence and reality.
After I asked you to re-read the thread, I re-read it again just to be sure I was remembering things correctly. And to be honest, I didn't think my posts were unfair until late in this thread (hence the previous apology).
I understand that you consider the predictions made by Obama's team "lies" but I don't think even they anticipated how little the banks would lend and how hard Republicans would block their efforts to improve things.
I'm not an Obama apologist, no matter what you think...I think he's fucked up a lot of shit. I also think he's done some really good stuff. I don't see a world where Romney could do anything but fuck shit up. His foreign policy experience is nonexistent, his domestic policy ideas all cater to the billionaires and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be harmful to the middle class, and his social and civil rights positions are straight out of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell playbook (and you'd think he'd have more sense than that...).
So there's really no choice here if you are a rational person who even has a cursory understanding of how to reasonably govern a country (or at least what you'd like to see). Barack Obama and Joe Biden are in every way a better idea for this country than changing to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Anyone who supports Romney-Ryan are either ignorant, racist, old, or very rich. Or a delicious combination of those four things. :)
Tripper
No apology needed Trip, but thanks anyway!!!
Now first, "Obama's team" represents Obama in every sense of the word team goes.
Second, your speculating on what you think Romney would do in the future. Obama can't predict the future, but you can??? Damn. I get your meaning, but see how these conversations go sometimes? What if I went off on you here and explained in detail how fucked this logic is? I know what you mean though. So, no need to boost my ego. How much foreign policy experience did Obama have when he was running for President?
And how can you judge people who may vote for Romney? Maybe they just see things differently than you and Romney may fulfill those things that Obama is not. They don't have to all be ignorant bible thumpers from Alabama just because they vote for Romney. Again, totally fucked up logic here.
Just making a point. Thanks again for the apology and out of respect for you I'll apologize for any wrong I may have done or said to you as well. I know you well enough and we go way back, long enough to where you need not worry about apologies. In the heat of a discussion, I know things get a bit steamed at times. I doubt you could, or would, do anything to change my opinion of you during one of these threads. Really, life's to short to get that bent out of shape.
Now, enough of all that. Carry on ya son of a bitch. ;D
Hookbender — Aug 28, 2012No apology needed Trip, but thanks anyway!!!
You're welcome. :)
Now first, "Obama's team" represents Obama in every sense of the word team goes.
Second, your speculating on what you think Romney would do in the future. Obama can't predict the future, but you can??? Damn.
I'm not claiming my view of the future is the only way things could go. But based on the failure of Romney's expressed policy positions in the past, it's fair to predict that they will fail again, as they've failed before. And his horrible gaffe fest that was his Europe trip tells us how "George W. Bush" he'd truly be in international relations. Doesn't mean it's definitely what's going to happen, but it's something that's pretty likely. Like when the people trying to figure out the effects of policy on the future make honest guesses. They're not LIES...they're merely EDUCATED GUESSES. And anyone deluded enough to act as though they're eternal truths needs to learn more about how this stuff works.
I get your meaning, but see how these conversations go sometimes?
For sure. But the trick is having the willingness to say "this is what I think based on these pieces of evidence" and being open to evidence to the contrary. Your assertion that they were lying about 8% unemployment is kind of ridiculous because they made that prediction based on the idea that certain things would go a certain way, and I think, based on having paid close attention to the banking industry and Congress in the past three years, that the people who made that prediction didn't anticipate how much the issues with the banks, the Eurozone, and the Republicans in Congress were going to fuck things up for them.
What if I went off on you here and explained in detail how fucked this logic is?
But it would be folly to attempt to explain how fucked my logic is, because the facts are that 1. Romney has had a chance to show how he would handle international trips, and failed miserably, and doesn't seem to understand how or why he failed, which doesn't bode well for that getting any better. and 2. His repeat of the horrible ideas of "Voodoo economics" that forced Reagan into raising taxes more than any other recent president are two things very likely to fuck shit up, giving support to my statement.
I know what you mean though. So, no need to boost my ego. How much foreign policy experience did Obama have when he was running for President?
He didn't have much - but did you see how much the world loved him when he made HIS trip as a candidate? Big difference...and the world loving our president is a GOOD thing. Based on what I've read, the rest of the world sees Romney as a Mormon George W. Bush, only less trustworthy.
And how can you judge people who may vote for Romney? Maybe they just see things differently than you and Romney may fulfill those things that Obama is not.
Right. To many of them, he's not white (true, but shouldn't matter - so they're racist). To many of them, he hates America (which is false). To many of them, he's a communist (another canard). To others, he's screwed up the economy (debatable, but there's a lot of blame to spread around for that one, and no indication from history that Romney's policies would be better).
They don't have to all be ignorant bible thumpers from Alabama just because they vote for Romney. Again, totally fucked up logic here.
I think you missed the point. My view (also known as an OPINION) is that the only way an otherwise sane human being could support Mitt Romney is if:
1. They are ignorant (meaning they don't really know much about him or possibly possess foolish notions about the current President that fuel their decision - they believe in the imaginary Obama the GOP has created with the help of the feckless MSM)
2. They are racist (so there's no chance they'd vote for Obama because he's half-black)
3. They are old (so they're set in their ways and "always vote Republican" and will continue to...this ties into the ignorant and/or racist part in some circumstances)
4. They are very rich (so they are voting for self-interest, since that's the only class likely to benefit from a Romney presidency).
Just making a point.
I get what you were trying to do, but you kind of swung and missed, in my opinion...
Thanks again for the apology and out of respect for you I'll apologize for any wrong I may have done or said to you as well. I know you well enough and we go way back, long enough to where you need not worry about apologies. In the heat of a discussion, I know things get a bit steamed at times. I doubt you could, or would, do anything to change my opinion of you during one of these threads. Really, life's to short to get that bent out of shape.
Now, enough of all that. Carry on ya son of a bitch. ;D
Right back at you, brother. :) Now go watch some Republicans lie about the President on TV - oh, wait - I mean go watch the RNC convention. I guess that's the same thing... ;)
Tripper
Hookbender — Aug 28, 2012Yeah, thanks for making my point for me. Maybe this will suffice as evidence for Tripper. ;D Thats been my point the entire damn thread.
So let's break it down...not that Politifact is the most reliable of the fact-checkers...
Romney has been truthful 16 + 13 + 14 percent of the time (counting half-true as just that - half) - 43%
And lied 14 + 17 + 17 + 9 = 57% of the time.
Obama has been truthful 23 + 23 + 12.5 = 58.5%
And lied 12.5 + 12 + 14 + 1 = 39.5%
(not sure where the 2% went in the Obama list)
The only evidence this shows is that the president is more honest than dishonest in his public statements, and his opponent is more dishonest than honest. I think I'll take the guy that lies less often (and not as ridiculously as Romney does, looking at the false + pants on fire comparison), thanks...
Tripper
I think the world loved him (Obama) because America elected a first time black President who has a great personality and who is liberal.... vs a gun slinger just waiting for a chance to give the command to blow shit up so he can hope to prove his allegations. Damn, did I just say that???
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that candidates lie 40% of the time time. How would the general public ever vote in a informed way? Most people don't have the time to dig through all the shit they say and determine what are lies and what is truth. You can narrow it down to just what's important to you and try to get that part straight. But it takes a lot of time and you have to be determined to come to a conclusion. Go to fact check. Both guys are full of shit. It's a damn shame. It really is. They use the same method guys use in a bar trying to get laid. ;D
Hookbender — Aug 29, 2012Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that candidates lie 40% of the time time. How would the general public ever vote in a informed way? Most people don't have the time to dig through all the shit they say and determine what are lies and what is truth. You can narrow it down to just what's important to you and try to get that part straight. But it takes a lot of time and you have to be determined to come to a conclusion. Go to fact check. Both guys are full of shit. It's a damn shame. It really is. They use the same method guys use in a bar trying to get laid. ;D
That's what they are banking on.
Stupid America!!!
Say some crap. People hear it. It must be true. Doesn't matter that it's a lie. These people have been bullshittin' people for so long I think it's a game to see how much bullshit they can spread before the facts finally come out.
It's like the "birthers", really? People just hate a man so much because he's black they will believe anything to hate him.
The media colludes by simply reporting all the lies that come out of these folks' mouths.
I love what this NPR reporter did.
http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/aug/24/and-im-not-going-take-it-anymore/
Here's her new project...
http://www.decodedc.com/
These republicans, especially McCain, are insane. Have you watched any of this shit? Disgusting. What a bunch of idiots.
Another act in the Big Show.
I thought that Paul Ryan was on message (even though the fact-checkers have savaged his falsehood-filled speech). I thought Ann Romney was on message. I thought Mike Huckabee was insane. I thought Chris Christie was accepting the nomination for himself, and, I have to say, that man will never be president because he just makes you want to hate him. I thought McCain looked like he has lost it. He advocated going to war with the entire middle east, staying in Afghanistan forever, and restarting the war in Iraq, if I heard him correctly. Watching him rant made me really glad he was not president during the Arab Spring.
Oh, and Condi Rice. She said some sweet things and was easily the most eloquent speaker. Too bad she got the task of trying to slam Obama's foreign policy, which has been pretty much the sterling gem in his crown... not to mention Hilary Clinton as head of state mopped the floor with her, the world loves her, and she gets shit done through diplomacy, not by starting wars... And trying to elucidate Mitt Romney's foreign policy, which I'm not sure he has any idea about at all, or plan for, except that he'll check with Israel before he does anything.
Charger..... I noticed the same thing about McCain. I listened to him and at the time he was speaking all I coud think was that I'm soooooo fuckin glad his ass ain't Prez. Same here, I was thinking this fucker would have blown up shit and set records. Seriously.
I thought he changed from the McCain of old to some shit he was advised to act like durring his run, but I think he's fucking lost it, for real now. It wasn't an act for sure. Dude has probs.
I think no matter whether President Obama wins or loses that Hillary needs to run again in 2016. She will win, and she will be our first woman president. If she decides that's what she wants. She has been an INCREDIBLE Secretary of State.
I watched Paul Ryan's speech and I don't think I've seen anyone lie the way he does. It's really kind of sociopathic.
I can't wait to see what sort of stupidity the Democrats trot out next week. :)
I would LOVE IT if they stick to the facts, though.
Tripper
I just wonder if either of these guys will ever spill their plans and goals. The character attacks are really old now. Do we have to wait for the debates for them to talk about it? Or I wonder if they'll just attack each other then as well. If that happens I ain't votin for either of them.
Hookbender — Sep 02, 2012I just wonder if either of these guys will ever spill their plans and goals. The character attacks are really old now. Do we have to wait for the debates for them to talk about it? Or I wonder if they'll just attack each other then as well. If that happens I ain't votin for either of them.
Check their official sites. They lay out their ideas there...
www.barackobama.com
www.mittromney.com
www.garyjohnson2012.com
;D ;D
Yeah. I want to hear them speak about their plans. And Obama mentions Romney way to damn much on his own site. He's scared. And should be. ;D
Hookbender — Sep 03, 2012 ;D ;D
Yeah. I want to hear them speak about their plans. And Obama mentions Romney way to damn much on his own site. He's scared. And should be. ;D
That isn't anything compared to how much Romney mentions Obama on his site. You'd think he didn't actually have any plans, and was just planning to win by being non-specific and was hoping to win by not being Obama... oh wait...
By the way, on the pages of Obama's plan for each issue, there is no mention of Romney... which is a pretty interesting contrast to Romney's pages, which has a big section on Obama on almost every plan page...
Romney looking pretty good right now, huh? One thing's for sure; it's always an adventure when he's off script.
Intrade's now got Obama at 67%, highest he's been all cycle. fivetirtyeight's got him at 72%--not as good as his gaudy 80% post-convention, but certainly not good news for Romney. I don't think Obama even needs to campaign any more. If he just lets Romney talk, he's going to swing more voters to Obama than anything Obama could do.
Including me. I mean, damn.
Did you mean to say, Obama doesn't need to lie anymore...... it's worked. ;D Kidding, but I think during the debates they need to have fact checkers on the right and left of the person asking the questions. ;D They need to have a big damn buzzer go of real loud every time they lie. Maybe shoot a bottle rocket off each lie. ;D ;D
Rocket powered lie detectorz? NOICE!!!! I'm fully down fer that shit!!
BINGEWOOD — Sep 19, 2012Rocket powered lie detectorz? NOICE!!!! I'm fully down fer that shit!!
Yeah, me too. After two questions only my candidate would remain (even if he wasn't invited). ;)
I do like that guy, Craig. Heard him on Talk of the Nation the other day and man, he didn't mince words about anything. On social issues I was 100% with him, though I do believe in a safety net that he doesn't seem to get.
I think, based on the other thread, he means Gary Johnson.
Ok. Yeah. I kinda like him too. Haven't done much reading about him cause he doesn't matter in this election.
I sure wish we had more say about who's in congress and the senate. It would make a huge difference in who you choose to vote for in a election. Our system is a damn mess. I think our country would be much better if we got rid of these lifers in the congress and senate.
So on 60 minutes last night, Romney said that the emergency room was a good medical option for people without insurance.
Back to the dark ages...
I'm sure he didn't mean it the way you took it. He can't be that retarded, can he? ;D
Probably the easiest way to describe Romney's chances at this point is "Romney's fucked, but maybe there will be a natural catastrophe that kills all the Democrats"...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/sept-25-romneys-narrow-path-without-ohio
Here's another way to look at it... flip through the scenarios and you'll see... with the polling so strong for Obama right now, he could lose Ohio and Florida, and still win. '
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map
Intrade's now got Obama at 75%... if you believe in Romney, now would be a great time to take that bet...
Maybe the Pubs are counting on voter suppression?