WorldTraveller

Same, no? But it can be the same if you choose for it to be? Absolutely. So the suggestion that it will be "removed" is false. There is an argument out there that supports a strong defense and it ties into the economy, and I don't mean defense contracts either. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but they do and I respect that and I don't take it as "senseless" or "pandering"In regards to the social issue, I will have to look that one up, and if that's the case, then yeah, I don't like it. However that doesn't change one iota how I view the man from a fiscal conservative POV. Also, it doesn't impact how I see him in other view either, because I know he's not some sort of social crusader.

Considering I'm a Latino, your point stands....

No, but they probably have been slipping it by you for quite some time.

Tell me how the promise and guarantee of the benefit has been removed? Considering that everyone has the option to opt into the premium support or remain in existing Medicare, and lets not go with the "obtuse" bit, specially considering that you are wrong on the facts.

Actually, that is reality to me. On a large scale, I don't see victimization here in the US. I don't see things that way. I'm just not programmed like that, I happen to believe that for the most part, we all have opportunities to succeed and that our outcomes are a direct result of what we put back into this life. I felt that way as a child and I still feel that way today.

Yes you do, you just reaffirmed by saying "Yup. that's why of the worlds top 50 billonares, there are a whopping 3 women" I gave you rational reasons to why, not just cited the studies. You didn't even bother to look at the studies to see if they made sense to you. Rather than that, you decided to stick with your guns, which was based off of regurgitated face valued stats that don't show the real picture. I'm trying to give you the reasons to why the outcomes are as such.

Maybe because they use LV, and btw Gallup has Romney up by 2 as well.

I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, lets not dumb it down with these sort of questions. "Are you implying it's justified to pay someone less than you pay someone else for doing the same job simply because they have a vagina where their penis should be?"

<p><p>Stats can be misleading when you just look at them at face value. Regarding gender gap, women work less than men do, that affects outcome. Women on average are more likely to look for part-time work and they usually have more gaps in between time and enter into lower paying fields. There was a consulting company named Consad that did a study on behalf of the Labor department that found that on an apples to apples basis, the real difference is somewhere between 5 - 7% here it is http://www.consad.co...inal Report.pdf Also American Association of University of Women that believes 5% is the number here it is http://www.aauw.org/...boutpaygap1.pdf I believe it's important for people to know the true facts of why outcomes are what they are. It's easier to believe in victimization, it appeals to many of us, however I don't fall that in camp and usually find that it's usually explained by other rational explanations.

So you think that's because of unfair practices from employers, or other factors such as motherhood?And do you believe that legislation can help solve this problem?

Forget about what RK said, I'm trying to have you answer a simple question. Generally speaking, do you believe there is a subsect of our society that isn't getting their "fair" share? If so, who and why?

Can you give me examples of which subsect of our society where they aren't getting their "fair" share? I'm trying to pin you down here but you are proving to be quite elusive An example please, I'd be very interested to hear who and why

I'm not understanding. Let me make myself a little more clear, do you believe that for the most part, everyone is getting their "fair share", or do you believe that the cards are stacked against people in our society?Generally speaking

Ok, so generally speaking you do believe that everyone is getting their "fair" share, right?

We were just talking about this, Bill Kristol weighs in: When "GOP pros" are most full of fear and apprehension about Republican prospects—for example, Reagan in 1980, Gingrich in 1994, and the Tea Party in 2010—Republicans tend to do well. When they're confident and complacent—for example, at the George H.W. Bush White House in late 1991 or the George W. Bush White House in early 2005—the GOP is heading for a fall. And remember in 2009 that GOP pros were petrified about Dick Cheney taking on President Obama on the war on terror. As I noted then: So while some Hill Republicans were fretting about getting a positive message out and others were launching substance-free listening tours, while GOP operatives were wringing their hands about whether Republicans could recover from the Bush years, and while most senior Bush alumni were in hiding, Dick Cheney--Darth Vader himself, Mr. Unpopularity, the last guy you'd supposedly want out there making the case--stepped onto the field. He's made himself the Most Valuable Republican of the first four months of the Obama administration (ably assisted by a few bold denizens of the Hill like the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, Pete Hoekstra). Of course, this has resulted in some Republican political operatives' doing what they do best: complaining, on background, to the media. "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince," was the front-page headline in Thursday's Washington Post. Two Republican "strategists" spoke "on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid." Profiles in courage! One of them opined that Cheney is "entirely unhelpful." The other elaborated, "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger.  .  .  .  We want Bush to be a distant memory in the next election." The GOP pros were wrong. Cheney won the debate, Obama eventually caved on the war on terror but only after inflicting political harm on himself and Democrats, Gitmo stayed open, and Republicans did well in 2010. As they will in 2012—that is, if the Romney camp keeps its nerve and ignores the varieties of pseudo-sophisticated conventional wisdom on offer from GOP pros without (and some within). Then, with Romney-Ryan close to victory in late October, and with Republican congressional candidates benefitting from a nationalized debate on the deficit, economic growth and Obamacare, we can all enjoy the spectacle of “GOP pros” racing to say—on the record!—how enthusiastic they'd always been about the Ryan pick.http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/kristol-gop-pros-often-wrong-132083.html?hp=t2_3

Good question Chef, I wouldn't mind reading TGreg's response to that as well.

He can without Ohio or Virginia, but it makes it considerably tougher. Here's why, Wisconsin is now a viable target, and if Romney loses Ohio, then he can replace it with Wisconsin , win Virginia and pick up two of the following three, Iowa, Colorado or N.H. Same goes with Virginia, he'd have to win Ohio, and pick up two of the three I mentioned below. However, he does have to win Florida.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Gallup showing a modest + 2 pop for Romney I would say that's quite natural considering for the most part the coverage for Ryan has been somewhat positive. That will change though. It will be up to Romney's campaign to make sure they define Ryan before the other side does.

There isn't really much behind JA's views other than meaningless, non substantiated pejorative declarations such as: "pandering to the base" or "ultra senseless " or this beauty "Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?" The one common denominator in all these statements is that there is no substance behind it, only his rigid intolerant perceptions and maybe a little frustration.

I read that story, (I do believe Mark McKinnon is named) but I initially thought the same thing, that there was a real lack of sources in that article. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some GOP strategists that feel that way. They understand that attempting to reform Medicare has almost always been a political loser, so I think it's quite natural a few of them are wavering a bit, but they have to buck up, be courageous like Paul Ryan and believe in doing whats right for the country, which is helping defend a serious attempt to preserve the entitlements.In order for it to work, they have to have near unanimity within the flanks from the right, of course there will be some politicians in certain districts that will attempt to distance themselves from this plan, and that's ok, but the cohesion has to be there for the most part, or else the whole thing can get pretty messy.

Joe Biden strikes again: Via 44, Joe Biden doing his best Joe Biden: Speaking to supporters in Virginia, Vice President Joe Biden said that Republicans and Wall Street would put Americans "back in chains." "They've said it. Every Republican's voted for it. Look at what they value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing," Biden said about Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal. "[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains," Biden said. Biden also said that with voters' help, the Democratic ticket could win "North Carolina again." The 'chains' comment was, to put it mildly, not ideal. Biden has been targeted by the GOP for his gaffes for months, but this one is a more loaded comment. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

I hadn't seen that poll. Ohio had been moving away from Romney over the past month, we'll see if it's an outlier.

Yes, I'm pro choice, I have no problems with gays marrying. I believe in reduced military spending. I'm sure if I took a look back, there would be others as well.However, I won't dismiss their motives with the same level of rigidity that you do. I believe that some people have honest differing views in how to move forward, maybe I disagree with them, but I understand that they see things from a different perspective than I do. That doesn't mean they are "pandering" or that their view is "senseless" it just means they see things differently. Nice thoughtful retort.

No, you don't fully concede this battle. That would be political malpractice, what you do as a strategist is you attempt to rebut this advantage he has and peel back a few votes. That's smart politics, specially considering that the majority of Americans are against the concept of "bailouts" and favoritism for unions.

JA at heart is a liberal. He believes with utter rigidity that if you don't believe in Pro-choice or are against gay marriage, that there is no other explanation, other than that you are a horrible social right wing monger, period! There is no room for explanation. He also believes that the views of the NY times and other "mainstream" outlets are the accurate descriptions of how things should be perceived. He also believes that there is a considerable amount of credence to how Jon Stewart sees things, that he is the purveyor of rational thought. However, JA is a smart guy, and he understands math, so even though his heart yearns for liberalism, his head tells him otherwise, (fiscal conservatism).