Hurry Up NOV 6

[erfalf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romneys-tax-mythology-made-simple/2012/10/10/6f09c24a-1306-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_blog.html

Then, Paul Ryan says 'I don't have the time' to explain the tax plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PM66-SxHDu0

I think anyone that follows politics period would understand that a tax cut does not necessarily equal a reduction in revenues to the federal government. It is not a zero sum game. Granted, there are a zillion other parts that go into the equation. Now, if someone was being genuine, they would just say I have no clue how much this is going to cost, I just believe this will make things better for our citizens.

And on top of that, I can't stand it when they say tax cuts "cost". The right way would be tax cuts "save" and tax increases "cost". Calling a cut a cost just shows me that they are worried about starving the beast. Can't have that happen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

.... not cutting the deficit in half as promised....

Repeating "the lie" just like gaspar.....the only part you missed was saying that it doubled or tripled in the last 3 years.

[Conan71]

What is a "meat kettle"?

Slang for Dutch oven?


Or a really nasty hooker.

[Conan71]

Repeating "the lie" just like gaspar.....the only part you missed was saying that it doubled or tripled in the last 3 years.

Yes, he spews this lie at about 1:08

I just love Obama in his own words.

[Conan71]

Oh hell, now that notoriously conservative hack, Tom Brokaw, is even perpetrating The Lie.

[Gaspar]

There are three phases to losing an argument:

1st The loser begins to raise their voice or dominate the conversation.
2nd The loser shifts from attacking the position of his/her opponent to attacking on a personal level (beliefs, family, race, religion).
3rd and finally, the loser ignores the argument completely and simply claims that his/her opponent is a lier, hopefully forcing his/her opponent to take the defensive.

Phase 3 is last ditch, and it seems that the Obama administration is firmly planted on that base.

[Hoss]

There are three phases to losing an argument:

1st The loser begins to raise their voice or dominate the conversation.
2nd The loser shifts from attacking the position of his/her opponent to attacking on a personal level (beliefs, family, race, religion).
3rd and finally, the loser ignores the argument completely and simply claims that his/her opponent is a lier, hopefully forcing his/her opponent to take the defensive.

Phase 3 is last ditch, and it seems that the Obama administration is firmly planted on that base.

Wow.  I'm amazed you keep vertical sometimes, Scott.  The lies perpetuated by Romney/Ryan have been pretty well documented.  Well, if you can call them lies, because they won't be depending on the time of day for Mr. Romney.  No one knows what his position will be on any number of issues at any one given time.

[Gaspar]

Wow.  I'm amazed you keep vertical sometimes, Scott.  The lies perpetuated by Romney/Ryan have been pretty well documented.  Well, if you can call them lies, because they won't be depending on the time of day for Mr. Romney.  No one knows what his position will be on any number of issues at any one given time.

I think President Obama should focus on that don't you?

In fact, if Romney's lying is so egregious, wouldn't' it make sense for the President to make that the entire focus of his attack tonight?

Of course when you attack on that basis, it requires details.  You can't simply point and scream lier. 

If indeed, Romney is so divergent from the truth, I expect President Obama's supporters to be very upset if he fails to point that out.

If he is incapable of mounting an attack against such obvious and well documented fabrication, then he is certainly even more inept than anyone could imagine, and therefore unfit for public office.

Wouldn't' you agree?

[erfalf]

Wow.  I'm amazed you keep vertical sometimes, Scott.  The lies perpetuated by Romney/Ryan have been pretty well documented.  Well, if you can call them lies, because they won't be depending on the time of day for Mr. Romney.  No one knows what his position will be on any number of issues at any one given time.

If this race were determined by who lied less I believe it would be a toss up. Keeping track would be futile. All Gas is pointing out is the strategy of the campaign. Where it seems Obama's tactic is "liar, liar pants on fire", the Romney team seems to focused on what Obama is actually doing and how there "solutions" (arguably I understand) will be better for the country.

[Hoss]

I think President Obama should focus on that don't you?

In fact, if Romney's lying is so egregious, wouldn't' it make sense for the President to make that the entire focus of his attack tonight?

Of course when you attack on that basis, it requires details.  You can't simply point and scream lier. 

If indeed, Romney is so divergent from the truth, I expect President Obama's supporters to be very upset if he fails to point that out.

If he is incapable of mounting an attack against such obvious and well documented fabrication, then he is certainly even more inept than anyone could imagine, and therefore unfit for public office.

Wouldn't' you agree?

It's the flip-flopping, Scott.  He changed his views on abortion twice IN 24 HOURS.  So is he for or against it?

How about OBomneyCare?  Will he or won't he end the restriction on pre-existing conditions?  One day he says he won't, then his advisers walk it all back.

Face it.  You guys have picked the most wishy-washy candidate probably in modern history.  But you don't care.  As long as the incumbent is gone, you'll take it.

[erfalf]

It's the flip-flopping, Scott.  He changed his views on abortion twice IN 24 HOURS.  So is he for or against it?

How about OBomneyCare?  Will he or won't he end the restriction on pre-existing conditions?  One day he says he won't, then his advisers walk it all back.

Face it.  You guys have picked the most wishy-washy candidate probably in modern history.  But you don't care.  As long as the incumbent is gone, you'll take it.

Again, Obama isn't exactly the paragon of consistency.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/republican-security-council/the-top-10-obama-flip-flops-by-ari-fleischer/171275079638338

[Hoss]

Again, Obama isn't exactly the paragon of consistency.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/republican-security-council/the-top-10-obama-flip-flops-by-ari-fleischer/171275079638338

wow, because Fleischer is the epitome of non-partisanship.  LOL.

[guido911]

Again, Obama isn't exactly the paragon of consistency.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/republican-security-council/the-top-10-obama-flip-flops-by-ari-fleischer/171275079638338

You left off the biggest flip of all--gay marriage.

[Gaspar]

It's the flip-flopping, Scott.  He changed his views on abortion twice IN 24 HOURS.  So is he for or against it?

How about OBomneyCare?  Will he or won't he end the restriction on pre-existing conditions?  One day he says he won't, then his advisers walk it all back.

Face it.  You guys have picked the most wishy-washy candidate probably in modern history.  But you don't care.  As long as the incumbent is gone, you'll take it.

So is he lying or are his positions evolving?  Can't have it both ways.

Either way, I think President Obama should focus on that, don't you?

[erfalf]

wow, because Fleischer is the epitome of non-partisanship.  LOL.

Never mind the content, as usual.