BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up. I posted this before abd it stil lstands Romney= Obama or at least Dubya. More spending w/o a clear plan to pay for it. Mitt changed his stance again. He now wants to support most of what his campaign stood for or against until the debate. Eliminate tax breaks that would hinder the lower incomes and help the upper incomes. I will repeal Obamacare on my first day in office! Nope he wants to keep portions of it. Mitt described how he’d reform it, not how he’d repeal it. He stood behind his 47% comments a week ago. Where does he stand now? He apologized for making those remarks. Edited October 8, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up. I posted this before abd it stil lstands Romney= Obama or at least Dubya. More spending w/o a clear plan to pay for it. Mitt changed his stance again. He now wants to support most of what his campaign stood for or against until the debate. Eliminate tax breaks that would hinder the lower incomes and help the upper incomes. I will repeal Obamacare on my first day in office! Nope he wants to keep portions of it. Mitt described how he’d reform it, not how he’d repeal it. He stood behind his 47% comments a week ago. Where does he stand now? He apologized for making those remarks. To this I'd quote Romney's great line in the debate about his 5 boys and how if you say something enough times, it might sound like the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up. I posted this before abd it stil lstands Romney= Obama or at least Dubya. More spending w/o a clear plan to pay for it. Mitt changed his stance again. He now wants to support most of what his campaign stood for or against until the debate. Eliminate tax breaks that would hinder the lower incomes and help the upper incomes. I will repeal Obamacare on my first day in office! Nope he wants to keep portions of it. Mitt described how he’d reform it, not how he’d repeal it. He stood behind his 47% comments a week ago. Where does he stand now? He apologized for making those remarks. Actually, if you listen to him, and not just the sound clips the media feeds you, you'd find he's been completely consistent. He didn't say anything in the debate that I haven't heard or read from his campaign for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Actually, if you listen to him, and not just the sound clips the media feeds you, you'd find he's been completely consistent. He didn't say anything in the debate that I haven't heard or read from his campaign for months. Just like Obama and Mitt's five sons, they can say it as often as they want, doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Romney will repeal Obamacare on Day One. He said he would keep some portions of it (possible coverage to 26 on parents' plan, no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) in a new bill that replaces it... that addresses cost controls and kicks much of the heavy lifting to each state so they can craft bills that are tailored to their state's situations --- like they did in Mass. --- rather than the one-size-fits-some that is Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up. And yet you can't help but wonder...if Romney's ambassador in Libya alerted him to Al Queada death threats of US personnel leading up to the anniversary if 9/11, Romney probably wouldn't deny the requests for additional security, let the people die, and then blame it all on a movie no one really knew existed. Y'know, when Jake Tapper has a P1 story on this, it's only going to get worse... http://abcnews.go.co...-past-august-2/ But hey...how 'bout those flippers? Pretty funny, huh? Edited October 8, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Sad, how some posters think that repetition of already disproved dem talking points, will somehow make them magically true. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan. "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. " Harvey Rosen, Princeton Economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 On second thought, you can't blame libs for what they perceive to be flip-flops/lies by Romney. They're getting their "news" from liberal news outlets, who grossly misrepresent what Romney has been saying. And then when they get a chance to see him un-filtered/edited, it sounds like lies because it doesn't jibe with what they've been told to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan. "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. " Harvey Rosen, Princeton Economist. and yet even though the (helpful) media has agreed that the Obama campaign is distorting, they continue to run their ad (twice during the Yanks game last night) even when they know its not true. Thats leadership you can believe in . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 and yet even though the (helpful) media has agreed that the Obama campaign is distorting, they continue to run their ad (twice during the Yanks game last night) even when they know its not true. Thats leadership you can believe in . . . . . . . That's okay. Romney can drive this point home during the 2nd debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan. "The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. " Harvey Rosen, Princeton Economist. Cross posted from this thread. So apparantly lying has been redefined to include "running for office while not being sufficiently liberal". First of all, calling it a "lie" is completely absurd. Going based on wrong models or predictions (assuming they are wrong) is not lying, it's being wrong. Going on unreasonable wrong predictions doesn't make you a liar, it makes you overoptomistic or unreasonable. With that said, the President's statements about the Romney plan are entirely unfounded because Romney's models are reasonable. https://www.princeto...rs/228rosen.pdf Please refer to refer to paragraph 3 on page 2, sections 4-5 on pages 12-14, and the table on page 17. Or, to simplify for the simple-minded: "3% growth is required, which, historically, is completely reasonable." Unless your argument is that President Obama can't comprehend how anyone could conduct public policy in a way that would achieve 3% growth, which in and of itself should disqualify him from seeking office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 To this I'd quote Romney's great line in the debate about his 5 boys and how if you say something enough times, it might sound like the truth. Are you saying that Myth believes his own lies, or that you believe Myth's lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) And B But he won't How many times since the debate has Obama given a rousing Teleprompter sermon at a college in a swing state? That debate was a serious WTF kick in the teeth. He'll be much more prepared and in smooth operator mode for the next one he might do a bit better and not look as tired and defeated after 20 minutes, but I believe he has no policy, has no answers, and no record to stand on. So my guess is he gets run over like Donte Whitner trying to stop Sammy Morris... and BF4E, I predict 0% chance Obama wins Virginia. Of course, I admit I am pulling that out of my hat, but it is what I believe based on living here and from what I hear from others in the community... Edited October 8, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Is this a reality or a lie? Jill Thacker was dying for a cup of coffee when she recently ran into a 7-Eleven convenience store. To her pleasant surprise, the coffee was free -- as long as she would commit to drinking it in either a red Mitt Romney cup or a blue Barack Obama cup. "Which are you going to choose, Mom?" her son asked. Which, indeed. A gun-owning, big-government-hating Republican, Thacker's every instinct told her to buy a Romney cup. But Thacker, 56, and her daughter have asthma -- a pre-existing condition -- and with Obama as president they'll be guaranteed the ability to buy insurance. Thacker stood in the 7-Eleven and stared at the red and blue cups, stymied by the choice they represented. Some Republicans told CNN they would never vote Democrat, even though they might benefit from Obamacare, while others said they will switch their vote because of health issues. (and suffer for it) "The real question is: Could defections in this group make a difference in states where the race is close, such as Virginia, Ohio or North Carolina?" Traugott said. "I think in those states it's so tight they could make a difference." Several groups of people would fare very differently under Romney's health care plan than they do under Obamacare, such as those with preexisting conditions, which can range from anything from back pain to cancer. Between 20% and 50% of all Americans have a preexisting condition, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Are you saying that Myth believes his own lies, or that you believe Myth's lies? But your lies are so much better. They're filled with factual inaccuracies, partial truths, and peppered with talking points from the most splendiferous of sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Young Republicans could also fare differently under Romney's plan. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, some 3.1 million young adults now have health insurance because of Obamacare, (no it's not FREE, they are covered under their partnts policy) which requires insurance companies to allow young adults to stay on their parents' policies up until the age of 26. Before Obamacare, insurance companies in many states took young people off their parents' policies at age 18 or 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Young Republicans could also fare differently under Romney's plan. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, some 3.1 million young adults now have health insurance because of Obamacare, (no it's not FREE, they are covered under their partnts policy) which requires insurance companies to allow young adults to stay on their parents' policies up until the age of 26. Before Obamacare, insurance companies in many states took young people off their parents' policies at age 18 or 19. Only if they were not full time students... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 And the insurance companies are all for that. They get a higher premium from the parents for another 7-8 years and all they have to do is cover the kids for that time. The kids are primarily healthy and would probably not have signed up for their own health care insurance until they had a job - which will be about six months after BO leaves office and not before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Jill Thacker was dying for a cup of coffee when she recently ran into a 7-Eleven convenience store. To her pleasant surprise, the coffee was free -- as long as she would commit to drinking it in either a red Mitt Romney cup or a blue Barack Obama cup. "Which are you going to choose, Mom?" her son asked. Which, indeed. A gun-owning, big-government-hating Republican, Thacker's every instinct told her to buy a Romney cup. But Thacker, 56, and her daughter have asthma -- a pre-existing condition -- and with Obama as president they'll be guaranteed the ability to buy insurance. I'm confused. Does she not have insurance now? I mean, the article -- whereever you stole it from -- suggests she'll have the ability to buy insurance. Which implies she didn't buy it yet, even though the pre-existing conditions rule is in effect right now. If this is such a big deal for her, why didn't she buy insurance yet? Another confusing thing from this article you stole and didn't link to...it says the coffee is free if she just picks a cup, but then suggests she isn't sure which one to "buy." Is the coffee free and she has to buy the cup? Or is the cup free and she has to buy the coffee? In the end, you have to believe she'll vote Romney because everyone knows a liberal wouldn't give a crap what color the cup was as long as they were getting something free with little effort on their own part. The fact that this women actually stopped to think lets you know she has no use for Obama, a leader who only stops for money and thinks everyone believes he's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts