carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? That can't be right. Obamacare is socialist/Marxist/communist and is the greatest threat that the United States has ever faced. The GOP would never, EVER, support something like Obamacare. Ever. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 as it was on Bill Clinton's. You have the alot to say for someone who didn't watch the debate. Clinton wanted to go further than that, right? Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You have the alot to say for someone who didn't watch the debate. Cry me a river. This topic has far more to do with the overall political scene than that debate. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Funny....no comments on the point of my post. Probably due to its vitriolic nature, but I think you have hit a good point. Lots of flak Romney is taking for lack of specifics. And to be sure there are some real concerns there. He wants to use that "China test" to cut programs, for example, which might amount to a lot of effort and the elimination of exactly 0% of our federal budget issues. Not exactly, but close enough in magnitude relative to the big sinkholes. And Romney doesn't have convincing answers to these hard, unsolved problems that he is making it sound like there are easy, philosophically based solutions for. But on the other hand, what grand specifics are part of the Obama plan going forward? What grand specifics did he have in 2008? A political principles message is all that anybody runs on. I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?), or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly. Thank you...that is basically my point. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Colbert said something about this being Obama's worst debate since he debated Clint Eastwood. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?), The AJA does have great details. The ACA is already passed. Etc. We know Obama's details. . . . or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly. Agreed but the difference in 2012 is that we have one candidate with detailed proposals and another that steadfastly refuses to provide any sort of details on any issue. So...by this logic, incumbents should always be reelected. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it??? Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really??? To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? You assume I supported it back in the 90s. Sometimes the assumptions you jump to make me laugh out loud.... Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it??? Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really??? To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? You assume I supported it back in the 90s. Sometimes the assumptions you jump to make me laugh out loud.... Where does it say I believe you supported it? I asked if you were aware of this. Don't be in such a mad dash to one-up me that you say something ridiculous like this. If you want to talk about this stuff, fine, but if you're just going to try to start a pissing contest, take it to the Woodshed. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted. Forget specific legislation . . . Willard won't even give basic details! Romney was explaining that what Obama should have done was take Simpson Bowles and at least take parts of it (if not all of it) and push it through to help with our budget issues. Romney's own VP candidate killed Simpson-Bowles. If you're trying to blame Obama for the failure of SB . . . well . . . you are truly blind. You can go look at who voted against it if you'd like. Heading that list? One Paul Ryan. BTW...What is it with democrats and using nick names for Romney? PS.....that is a joke. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 So...by this logic, incumbents should always be reelected. Not necessarily. Nothing is stopping Romney from offering details. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it??? Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really??? To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? You assume I supported it back in the 90s. Sometimes the assumptions you jump to make me laugh out loud.... Where does it say I believe you supported it? I asked if you were aware of this. Don't be in such a mad dash to one-up me that you say something ridiculous like this. If you want to talk about this stuff, fine, but if you're just going to try to start a pissing contest, take it to the Woodshed. You responded to my post by stating that it's a Republican idea...etc. What else was I supposed to think? Something I hope people will realize with me here over time. I don't tow the party line with Republicans. I don't listen to Rush, Hannity or Beck. Those people disgust me. I am very fiscally conservative and socially more liberal. That doesn't jive with many things the Republicans have done over the last 20 years even though I am tied to those actions many times since I tend to vote Republican. So, I tend to be a little sensitive when I'm tied to things I have not supported. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 You fit in so well here it's hard to remember sometimes that you just registered in August. Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 So...by this logic, incumbents should always be reelected. Not necessarily. Nothing is stopping Romney from offering details. Well, the point is, and it's a fair one: should candidates be held to different standards for campaigns when running against incumbents vs when not? I'm not sure the AJA/ACA necessarily qualify as whole specifics for Obama's broad, long-term plan at tackling say, the budget issue. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 BTW...What is it with democrats and using nick names for Romney? PS.....that is a joke. What's the joke? Are you trying to compare names like Obambi, Obamugabe, Odumba, etc. to calling Willard "Mitt" Romney by his real first name? If so . . . well . . . keep working on those jokes. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Well, the point is, and it's a fair one: should candidates be held to different standards for campaigns when running against incumbents vs when not? Who is being held to different standards, exactly? I want as many specifics as possible from both Romney and Obama. That's holding them to the same standard, right? I'm not sure the AJA/ACA necessarily qualify as whole specifics for Obama's broad, long-term plan at tackling say, the budget issue. Agreed . . . but I'm talking about long term plans across the board and not just the budget. Health care. Regulations. Taxes. Spending. Etc. Has Romney been more specific on any issue? Link to comment
Recommended Posts