Well first of all, let’s take into account that this is a center right country and always has been. In June of 2010, Gallup conducted a poll wherein, 42% of Americans self identified themselves as conservative, and just 20% self identified themselves as liberal. This fact was never more evident than in November of 2010, when conservatives swept local and national elections. And despite what you will hear in the media, and from the Obama regime, the November 2010 election was a referendum on Obama, and Pelosi’s management of the economy which by most measures, has become worse. From CNN Money – “Only 29% of CEOs said they expect to hire more employees in the next six months, down from 36% in the last quarter. Company leaders are also cutting back on capital spending plans: just 30% expected to increase spending, compared to 43% last quarter.”, and a lot of this uncertainty stems from the “fiscal cliff” issue, and Obama’s inability to convince Americans, or even members of his own party that raising taxes on the “rich” will resolve our problems. Of course, everyone knows that it won’t, but that fact hasn’t stopped Obama from demagoguing the issue. Set aside the fact that Obama has never submitted a serious budget, with his last attempt earlier in the year, not receiving one single vote in either Congressional Chamber, not even from his own party. Not one single vote!!! How can anyone be reelected, or even elected for that matter, that is incapable of submitting a serious budget? Finally on this note is the fact that a conservative Governor just held off on all out liberal assault and won a recall election in a very blue state. Thank you Governor Walker.
Now let’s bring into question the only issue that Obama may have had the upper hand on, and that was foreign policy. That is until just recently when his misguided policies are now literally blowing up in his, and our faces. Relations with the ME are at an all time low, and Obama surrogate and UN Ambassador Susan Rice outright lied to the American people for days following the Embassy attacks, a fact of which is well known by many, no thanks to the sycophantic, Obama loving media. Obama has never visited Israel, denigrated Netanyahu in an off mike conversation with Sarkozy, continues to give Iran more time and confidence, and has done nothing in regards to Syria, where the real massacre is taking place. Outside of allowing the military to take out UBL, of which his braggadocio has helped incited current ME violence, his foreign policy has been confusing and ineffective.
Now we need to consider Obama’s plan for the next four years, because this is after all, a referendum on Obama, not Mitt Romney. Although Mitt Romney does have a comprehensive plan, and the background and experience to get the job done, this election will be decided on Obama’s plan, which by all accounts, is more of the same. He just needs more time, according to pundits and himself. Well thinking people realize that nearly 4 years is enough time to see some positive results, of which there just hasn’t been enough, set aside the fact that some economists are thinking that hyperinflation may be headed our way soon, gas prices have more than doubled, unemployment is headed upward, and family incomes are on the decline. And what is Obama’s answer? Higher taxes, higher insurance premiums due to Obamacare, more regulation, and more redistribution, and according to him, it just needs more time to work. I don’t think many people are buying that.
Finally the polls, which are misleading to say the least, mostly because they over sample Democrats and base their expected turn out on 2008 numbers, which by any measure was a very unusual election with unusually high turn out numbers in several categories. Also, I believe the most recent swing state polls are over sampling Democrats by a minimum of 5 percentage points. The following is the conclusion of a very good Hugh Hewitt interview with Jay Cost: “How do you get a 4 point Democratic advantage for this president on the top line number with a tie among independents? The only way you get that is through an overwhelming advantage in terms of partisan identification for Democrats.”
Most of the mainstream media will do everything they can to see that Obama is reelected, and they prove that daily in their polling and in their analysis. I base my opinion on the fact that we are a center right country, the November 2010 election outcomes, the Walker win in WI, and the failed policies of Obama. I could be wrong, but I do expect a Romney victory in November.
Blogs For Victory 
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist (although I could provide a few). Obama is the death knoll to tis country while Romney (nowhere near perfect) is the slow climb out. I have had enough–time for a change.
Why so glum? THIS may be bad news for Mitt, but it’s great news for all Americans who love America.
Word has it that they were found in a box in the trunk of Al Franken’s chief of staff’s car with a bunch of lost absentee ballots.
Here is page that collates polls about party ID, look at the rise of the indys and the drop for reps after the 2010 midterm.
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-party-identification
Don’t trash the page because it is TPM (a lib site), it just aggregated the polls. Rmoney needs to attract the indys which seems to be something he isn’t able to do. I am guessing this center right country is going to re-elect Jimmah Carter II.
Let’s take a look at how Romney is competing among Independents in recent polls:
Ohio – Leads Among Independents
Ohio Newspaper Organization – Romney +28
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +1
American Research Group – Romney +16
Fox News – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +3
Public Policy Polling – Romney +2
Florida – Leads Among Independents
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +3
Gravis Marketing – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +2
American Research Group – Romney +1
Florida Times Union – Romney +4
Fox News – Obama +2
But of course it is once again the messenger:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/27/Romney-Winning-Swing-State-Independents-Media-Ignores
Per 538 Barry’s chances of winning is 82%, that 47% comment by Rmoney is a killer.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Romney edges out President Obama among independents by 1.2 percentage points in Talking Points Memo’s aggregation of national polls, even though the president leads the GOP nominee, overall, by 3.9. That’s because independents tend to be less enthusiastic about voting than supporters of either party, and so they’re having a smaller effect on overall preference.
For the most part, democrats will vote for Obama, and republicans will vote for Romney, but more democrats will vote for Romney, than will republicans vote for Obama, and the independents WILL break for Romney. Here’s the x factor – voter enthusiasm is much higher for republicans than democrats.
“Here’s the x factor – voter enthusiasm is much higher for republicans than democrats.”
Except it isn’t. Recent polls have shown that Democratic enthusiasm has matched or exceeded Republican enthusiasm. It’s a lot easier to vote for someone you like than to vote against someone you hate.
“It’s a lot easier to vote for someone you like than to vote against someone you hate.”
Yet voting against an imaginary yet thoroughly demonized Right is the core of Leftist support.
That, and Identity Politics.
None of you Lefties, with the single exception of James, can even state a political ideology. None of you state support for a political system of a large and powerful central government, unrestrained as to size, scope and authority, and explain why you think this is a better system than the Constitutional system of a small federal government with severely limited size and power, and more authority left to the states and the people.
Certainly not you, casper.
While you claim to like certain things Obama has done, you always fail to explain how they fit within a Constitutional limit on size, scope and power of the federal government.
While you praise some things passed by Congress during Obama’s term you never address the many things that have been imposed on the nation outside the legislative process, by Executive Order, such as the presidential fiat handing nearly unrestrained power and authority to the EPA.
You ignore things like Fast and Furious, and the fact that this administration made a cold-blooded decision to back one drug cartel over its enemies by providing it with massive firepower, including Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles with sniper scopes, knowing that many people would die but deciding that Mexican people were expendable in the pursuit of political agendas.
Your candidate is not running ON his record, or his qualifications, or his resume, but AGAINST Mitt Romney, and doing so by lying about him and his agenda, by having his surrogates like Harry Reid slander and libel him, by having his surrogates like Harry Reid attack his religious beliefs, and by running a foul and despicable campaign based almost wholly on the Politics of Personal Destruction—and you say you are voting for him because you LIKE HIM BETTER!!??
I agree that reps are more enthusiastic than dems but i believe the edge isn’t as wide as it used to be. I think in large part because of Slick Willy. He excited dems Barry doesn’t. Unless things change significantly, and they can (debates, MENA, Israel/Iran); Barry will win a close race 51 49.
Your analysis is pretty good 6206j, but I think you’re overlooking November 2010, and the recent Walker win. I believe those two elections are precursors for this one and again, this will be a referendum on Obama and with economic indicators as they are, I see a Romney victory.
Romney needs a great first debate and he has a good chance at it. Barry isn’t very good at them as I recall and he does get prickly easy. It should be a good show.
6206j,
“Barry will win a close race 51 49.”
I’m guessing 50-47, with independent candidates picking up the other 3%.
Here is a recent gallup voter enthusiasm poll that supports the notion that post DNC dems are fired up. It just one poll but it is something.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157547/democratic-enthusiasm-swells-swing-states-nationally.aspx
Believe what you wish about the current polls as there is no stopping the stupid from doing what stupid does. In short order–believe what you want, follow the polls to your own downfall, but never ask me what I think again because I have constantly said that only a fool follows a poll with such regard.
See all y’all on Nov. 7th when the Dems have impacted hard and the only thing left is lawsuits (the 2nd coming) of the losers.
“In June of 2010, Gallup conducted a poll wherein, 42% of Americans self identified themselves as conservative, and just 20% self identified themselves as liberal.”
I’ve been polled a couple of times and I’ve always self identified as a conservative.
“Finally the polls, which are misleading to say the least, mostly because they over sample Democrats and base their expected turn out on 2008 numbers, which by any measure was a very unusual election with unusually high turn out numbers in several categories.”
2008 was a presidential election year. 2010 wasn’t. Turnout is always better in presidential election years.
casper, if you self identified as a conservative you:
1. Lied
2. Don’t know what a conservative is
3. Use your vote as the equivalent of a sharp stick to poke yourself in the eye
I think that 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. For one thing, Liberals know that is something of a pejorative and have a hard time identifying themselves as such, even when they favor huge and unlimited federal government, the redistribution of private property, and ignoring the Constitution (particularly the 10th Amendment) because they get a warm fuzzy feeling about spending OPM, as well as sticking it to The Rich, those bastids.
For another, they simply do not understand the ideology of the Left, or of conservatives for that matter, so they just say what they think sounds more American and apple pie.
But you have outed yourself from the political closet as not just a Liberal but a rather extreme Liberal, and no matter how much you lie to pollsters that is what you are.
Are you claiming that others lie as much as you do? Or just that they are as ignorant as you are?
Amazona,
In the end I think all Americans want the same things.
Opportunity.
Freedom to determine the path of our own lives.
National security.
Hope for future generations.
Comfort in our declining years.
Now there’s a short list. I know liberals and conservatives alike that all nod sagely at that list. The difference is those polar opposite sides want to get to all those things by way of different paths. One canard is about affirmative action. Well, for quite some time AA was necessary. I don’t know how much it is needed now. I want people to hire people based on the content of their skill set not the color of their skin. But you know what, if someone wants to hire only black, or white or female or transgender workers I think that would be just fine because there is more than one place to work in a stable and growing economy. America is too big now for the old school kinds of bigotry and racism that flourished a half century ago.
I have to admit that as much as it makes me shake my head I get the traditional basis behind your argument against calling same sex unions marriage. But you’ve got to admit as facile as the argument is that marriage was such a sacred union to conservatives they would be just as adamant and angry about divorce. And honestly this isn’t a gotcha, I do understand where conservatives are coming from on this issue. To many liberals though who live in the secular world especially where marriages fail and it isn’t the shame it was sixty years ago for a married couple to break up this demand that your side owns the word marriage rings a little hollow when it’s so easy to point at people like Newt Gingrich.
The security of the American homeland is a trap for both sides. As big as the American military and national security infrastructure is it failed to keep New York and Washington safe from 9/11. I feel that was a systemic problem not a political one. Could it happen again? Sure, but it’s not as likely if American troops aren’t in the ME.
Hope for those who come after you is fundamental to any great nation. I think one of the greatest things you can do for kids is to make sure they come up healthy. President Obama has gone the first step toward a health care system that assures that. Mitt Romney as governor in Massachusetts did the same. Had Romney run on his health care bill he would be hugely in the lead right now. The need to be the polar opposite of Mr. Obama to appease the farthest right in his base is a sure and swift poison that’s killing his chances.
If a society doesn’t take care of its elderly it is not civilized. Period.
“Finally on this note is the fact that a conservative Governor just held off on all out liberal assault and won a recall election in a very blue state. Thank you Governor Walker.”
It helped that Walker had 8times the money that Barnett did. Most of it from out of state.
Well, what helped in getting the bogus election on the books was a huge influx of PEOPLE from out of state, which didn’t seem to bother you. At least the people who actually voted live in Wisconsin and were not bused in by unions to sign multiple times on petitions and shove this election down the throats of the citizens of the state.
The actual citizens of the state elected the man, then by an even larger margin said they thought he was doing a good job, in spite of the antics of the out of state union activity.
As for money, yeah—people from all over the nation saw this as a referendum on whether the will of the people (who voted for Walker) or the will of the mob (the unions and their backers) would prevail, knowing that if the mob won, it would gain so much power that it would infect the whole nation.
Do you suppose Obama and/or the majority of the Obama loving media could be honest with the American public? Just once maybe?
IRS data, though, shows that Romney’s effective income tax rate — that’s what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in — is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.”………..IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate — also lower than Romney’s.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz27d2nshkN
Center right means just that. Closer to the center than to the extreme. Where most of you dwell. And in your delusion, reflected back by the house of mirrors you inhabit via right wing radio, Fox “news” and conservative websites, you believe that your points of view are shared by the majority. They are not and come November, you will have the same histrionic reaction to the outcome. You will scream; as you go down to oblivion, that “the media” was in a conspiracy and the vote results were manipulated and what ever other lame excuses you can muster but the fact will be that Romney was a horrible candidate with no political skills for a presidential campaign, who wasn’t himself, who pandered to the extreme right, who wasn’t specific and who constantly and consistently changed his position on issues. He also is losing in Ohio,where most of the jobs are in an industry that he want to bankrupt.That will endear him to the residents of the state, particularly since the industry is on the upswing. Thanks to the President. He has already lost Penn, regardless of their voter suppression attempts; yet to be decided. FL is iffy. My suggestion is to get used to the fact that the fanatical, extreme ideology supplanted on this blog is going nowhere. People just don’t buy into your hysteria.
Well so far Mitch, the only hysterical one has been you.
Cluster, mitche is quite shrill, but also rude and delusional.
Shrill—well, that is self explanatory.
Rude, in his obsession with barging into what is supposed to be a conservative blog for actual discussion of politics, to constantly yammer his hatred of “conservatives”, etc. Let’s face it—-that is just plain low-class rude. We get it. He can’t stand Romney, he has some weird idea of what “conservatives” and “conservatism” and “the Right” mean that is totally absent any reality, he is a total snob riddled with class envy and hatred, and he lies.
Oh, and while being rude, he loves to lecture us on “civility”.
As I said, he’s a piece of work.
As for the lying, out of many examples, I offer this: (About Romney) “He also is losing in Ohio,where most of the jobs are in an industry that he want to bankrupt.” OK, I accept the fact that if you believe something it is not a lie, no matter how untrue it is, but still——can ANYONE truly believe that Romney “wants to bankrupt” any industry? ?????? How?
(I wonder, would such an effort be anything like permatorium in the Gulf, the banning of offshore drilling along the Atlantic Coast, the threat to cripple the entire coal industry—-??? You know, real efforts by a president to bankrupt industry? Or would it be more nefarious, like the forcing of employers to DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN !!!!! ????)
No, mitche is not only nuts, but he is toxic nuts, and he sees no contradiction in his rudeness in calling us here names with no provocation (in this one post alone, we have “histrionic, extreme, hysterical, and fanatical” and that is just an unsolicited ramble from the feverswamp of his tortured little mind.
When I read mitche’s blatherings, all I see is lie after lie, delusion after delusion, and bizarre hate-driven fantasy after bizarre hate-driven fantasy. He bleats about imaginary “voter suppression” in Pennsylvania, he denies the active participation of the Comlicit Agenda Media in the election, he claims most of the jobs in Ohio are in one industry, he doesn’t even know the meaning of words he uses (“supplants”), he defines the belief that our nation should be governed by its own Constitution as “extreme” and “fanatical” and he simply oozes his contempt and loathing for a political system that exists only in that feverswamp of his tortured little mind I mentioned earlier.
I am soooo jealous of you guys. I KNOW you’ve mortgaged the house and broken open the piggy bank and put all your cash on a Romney/Ryan victory at bwin.com/politics. It’s paying five to one for a Republican victory, and you guys seem to know more than the lame stream media pollsters and these oddsmakers. Those crazy Dems must be cooking the odds to look like they’re in favor of Obozo, but you know better, and will take their millions, laughing all the way to the bank!
I wish I were that smart.
What an excellent and insightful political analysis of the pros and cons of the two competing political systems and the impact of each on the economy, national security and liberty of the United States. Your interest in and grasp of the basics of political ideology is writ plain in your posts, and your evaluation of the ideologies involved is quite compelling
They go a long way toward explaining the thought processes of those who vote for Obama.
Ama: “Yet voting against an imaginary yet thoroughly demonized Right is the core of Leftist support.”
Project much? This is outright laughable on the face of it. Clint Eastwood may have immortalized it, but half the country already knew before he appalled his Republican hosts by rambling to an empty chair: the GOP and the right are campaigning against an imaginary opponent, a Barack Obama nobody else sees except them. (Jon Stewart’s take on this was classic.)
Thoroughly demonized? You’ve got Ralph Reed’s religious “Faith and Freedom Coalition” sending a survey out to millions that compares Obama’s policies to those of Nazi Germany. Here’s one question: “How much danger do you think liberty is in right now as a result of President Obama’s policies, actions and agenda for America’s future? (Mark as many answers as you think appropriate.)”
The first five multiple choices are as follows: 1.) More serious than the threats we faced in World War II for Nazi Germany and the Japanese because the attack on liberty today is from our own government. 2.) More serious than the threat we faced from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 3.) More serious than the American Civil War. 4.) All of the above. 5.) Serious, but not as serious as the threats to liberty listed above.
Seriously, are you suggesting the left demonizes the right more than this? Get serious, Amazon grrrl. And remember – Ralph Reed was the darling of evangelicals during the Reagan era, and today he commands an impressive following of conservative true believers (these televangelist sycophants and American Family Radio listeners are your political people, Cluster and Ama, like it or not).
Bottom line, it is definitely the right wing who demonizes its opponents – as socialists, Muslims, Kenyans, as traitors and usurpers, hypocrites and frauds. As I have noted here before, it is a kind of self-aggrandizement by proxy to demonize one’s opponents so thoroughly and relentlessly. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be working that well for you.
Nazi, bigot, racist, homophobic, potential terrorist. Just a few of the labels that members of the current administration have thrown my way.
Hey look, I found you the perfect avatar.
GMB
most EXCELLENT!!!
Cluster you know just as well as I do that this election is about more than just obama and his policies. This is about who reaps the benefits of the fully recovered economy after Q2 2014. The party that is in power in 2015 after the midterm elections will stay in power for a very, very long time. If it is the Democrats, you know your culture war agenda and very likely your party as you know it now is dead. On the other hand if Romney wins and you get a GOP Senate in eight years you might get all of your culture wars dreams to come true. There might even be a review of Roe v Wade in the SCOTUS after the appointment of 2 conservative judges. After the boomers though in say 2050 the country will shift back toward the left once again simply because it must. Same goes for control in the hands of the Democrats it’s difficult in a democracy to be a one party state for more than 40 years without corruption trickling in to weaken your pedestal.
A good morning read:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-26/political-hell-undecided-voters/57846238/1
Another good morning read. Legacy media getting their excuses in before debates even happen.
I suspect Mitt could not prepare at all and still make the one you waited for look like he had a 0.00 college gpa.
king putt? queen mooch? Indeed.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/
Cluster,
Here’s a good article on how polls work (and no they aren’t using the 2008 model).
http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107778/the-polls-dont-use-2008-turnout-model#
Following Obama’s victory in 2008, on the heels of the Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate in 2006, James Carville predicted that the Democrats would control government for the next forty years. Then in 2010, we saw quite an aggressive effort on behalf of Obama and Biden promoting that summer as the “summer of recovery”, and how the economy was gaining steam following the 2009 stimulus and everything was going to be good again. Then came the fall of 2010, which saw conservatives take back control of the House, pick up seats in the Senate, and grab the majority in many state legislatures as well as winning quite a few gubernatorial seats. Then in December of 2010, after years of Democrats blaming the Bush tax rate cuts for the problems of the deficit and the sluggish economy, Obama decided to extend those tax rate cuts, saying that raising taxes in a “recession” was the wrong thing to do. Then early in 2011, we learn that the stimulus didn’t work, and the economy was not gaining steam, and later that year Obama starts blaming the newly elected republican congress.
Now, we have a member of the Executive Suite tell us that Q2 2014 will be when the economy fully recovers, and then proceeds to fight phantom culture wars that supposedly conservatives are waging against high minded liberals, so there really shouldn’t be any questions as to why conservatives like myself just don’t take liberals seriously.
Now on to our very own televangelist Dennis, who ironically takes swipes at his own brothers in Christ. Strangely Dennis takes every opportunity to recite Biblical passages when directing his scorn at those he opposes, but faults others who do the same, so again, it’s obviously difficult for me to think that any one of our resident liberals is operating with a full deck.
And now we have another resident liberal denying the liberal bias, and over sampling of Democrats in many of the recent polls, by linking us to a far left website opinion piece. But let’s just assume that that is correct. I am sure then that that liberal, who self identifies as a conservative, will buy into the following poll:
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows both President Obama and Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. When “leaners” are included, it’s Romney 48% and Obama 46%.
And here is some more well informed analysis:
So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:
• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).
This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…
• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)
• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:
• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher
• The GOP field organization is better.
Cluster,
Here’s another reason Romney will win:
Keep in mind, this is not some some Conservative website; this is the Obama Administration Commerce Dept.
What’s funny is the efforts of our resident Leftists to grasp at any poll that shows their guy winning, while totally ignoring the facts on the ground, facts which show an almost total lack of reasons why the average person would want 4 more years of this. They remind me a lot of Bahgdad Bob.
Obama wins unless there is a major gaffe in one of the debates by the President or Joe Biden. Obama has a record of not being a great debater but he’s not a terrible one either. The formats favor Romney but he’s got to do something spectacular to make people forget that 47% comment. Now I will already concede that Romney “wins” both debates and Ryan “wins” his debate as that relates to any commenting here because the conservatives here will call anything short of the GOP candidates not falling down or vomiting on the podium a “victory.” Could there be a hot mike incident? Possibly. But it’s more likely that the MSM outside of Fox [which yes is deeper in the tank for Obama than any year I have ever seen.] that analyzes these events will be very critical of Romney no matter what happens and even more critical if Romney or Ryan toss out a gaffe or two.
Gaffe? barky make a gaffe? Never!!
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/bumbling-obama-i-want-to-see-us-export-more-jobs/
I think the efforts of the RRL to “explain” that 47% comment are indicative of how threatened you feel., and how inherently dishonest you are, because I do not believe that YOU believe, not really, that it was a slur against “nearly half of the nation”.
Just as you are already setting up excuses for a Romney win—-that “..formats favor Romney..” and that “… the conservatives here will call anything short of the GOP candidates not falling down or vomiting on the podium a “victory.”” are perfect examples.
Just as you are so frantic that you all need to keep screaming in our ears that THE POLLS THE POLLS THE POLLS THE POLLS say Obama is going to win. (They don’t, they say he is ahead now, but this is your spin on it.)
Amazona I don’t think it was a slur. It was Romney speaking candidly to a room filled with deep pockets who don’t see people until they are at least close to the periphery of their class. Is it rote class warfare politics to use this against Romney? Sure. Is it working? Yes.
Polls are tricky things. I can only imagine how different you would see the polls if Romney had a five or seven point lead right now in gallup’s poll. Or after the second debate if Romney gets a big bump in states like Florida and Virginia will you scoff at the polls then. See this is the trap of not being objective. And plus I have no skin in this game. If Obama loses I get to watch the “Romney recovery” and write about the tough path Democrats have to get back in power. If Romney loses I get to do a little touchdown dance of an article about the death of the GOP. It’s all the same.
Is it rote class warfare politics to use this against Romney? Sure. Is it working? Yes.
Will it continue to work for 40 more days? That’s the question. Will retirees on social security who make up a not insignificant portion of that 47%, and who have been especially hurt during the last 4 years of zero interest rates, say to themselves as they pull the polling booth curtain closed, “Romney insulted me, so I’m going to vote for 4 more years of pain and suffering just to punish him.” We’ll see in 40 days.
Dave There you go again. It is the problem of objectivity rearing it’s ugly head again. Obama based on the economy should be losing big right now it’s almost a miracle that he isn’t. Or is it? I think the American people have a popularity contest now and I’d posit 95% of the electorate has made up their minds of that 95% I’d call it Obama 55% Romney 45%. Romney looks tired he never expected this race to be this hard to run and there have been some very politically amateurish mistakes made since the conventions that appear to have exposed his candidacy as not yet ready for prime time.
“……there have been some very politically amateurish mistakes made since the conventions that appear to have exposed his candidacy as not yet ready for prime time.”
Yet you forget the grotesque blunders of Barry in his last campaign, such as explaining that he had already been to all 57 states and then, when seeing his campaign staff madly signaling to him, trying to “fix” this by saying well, he had not been to all 58 states but had been to 57 of them. Or the more minor gaffe of actually stating his Marxist philosophy when off the leash, in explaining that “when you spread the wealth around everybody benefits”. He had quite a tally of really bizarre statements, which his apologists just wrote off as being tired, or what happens when you say so much in a given time frame.
“….who don’t see who don’t see people until they are at least close to the periphery of their class.”
You see, bigotry always shows through, in this case the bigotry of assigning a whole catalog of beliefs, actions and opinions to people based on how much money they have.
This statement, this bizarre statement, illustrates the prejudice and bigotry that not only forms the basis of what is so foolishly considered a political position, it defines it.
To the profoundly bigoted, such as Diane, there is some “class” of person, defined by its wealth, which lives in an isolated bubble in which it only recognizes others who share the bubble, and is unaware of anyone who is not, as she sneers, “…at least close to the periphery of their class”.
It is not only an insane perception, it is vile, and just as toxic in its own way as any racial or sexist bigotry. It is a cartoonish vision of callous indifferent people, insulated from suffering, uncaring, aloof, and worse yet infected with the same kind of bigotry she herself exhibits, just in the reverse direction.
In other words, just as she has lumped people, based on their wealth, into a “class” she then demonizes, she projects that this imagined “class” is as bigoted as she is, and therefore doesn’t even SEE “… people until they are at least close to the periphery of their class. ”
This is actually quite typical of the Left, which is notorious and rightly so for its perception of people not as individuals but merely as members of a demographic, which is then identified with rigid characteristics.
But it is also a vicious bigotry.
In this case, Diane is actually stating that people in this “class” she has identified, based upon superficial characteristics such as wealth, do not acknowledge those outside the class, and are therefore not only indifferent to their situations but ignorant of them because they are too far from the ‘periphery’ of their own bubble of existence.
Think about it. In the twisted mind of such as Diane, so steeped in so many aspects of bigotry, a wealthy man never really “sees” the man who fixes his car, for example, as a human being, or the woman who hands him his venti latte in the morning, or the receptionist at his dentist’s office, because they are not “close enough” to the “periphery” of his own class and are, therefore, of no value.
And this man simply cannot, or will not, grasp the fact that others are less fortunate than he—even though he, himself, is very likely to have begun his own working life at the same level. No, to the Dianes of the world, money is a barrier to humanity, to compassion, even to the ability to understand the problems of those who have less.
It’s a horrible, twisted, nasty, vile, bitter and hateful perception of others, but it seems to be the mainstay of the Leftist base.
And of course it flies in the face of reality, reality in which so many of these allegedly indifferent, callous and uncaring “RICH” share so much of their riches to help those less fortunate.
Spook, you and I have talked about this, everyone I know has had the same experience, and people on the blog have commented on it—that is, knowing people who not only voted for Obama last time but were absolutely thrilled at the chance to do so, who are not going to again this year. These people range from relatives we know to be long-time dedicated Dems to relative strangers who may or may not have been, but there is a feeling out here away from the polls, away from the hoopla, that Obama has lost a lot of the votes he got last time.
I know this is not scientific, but we all remember the tone of the election last year, and it is very different this year. It is quite somber, even on the Left, in spite of the rah-rah cheerleading we get from the resident Lefties here on the blog. The conservatives are upbeat but very very serious, and the Dems are quite grim.
The desperate tone of the TV ads is also interesting—the Obama ads reek of desperation, packed as they are with lies. I listen to each new one once, before just hitting MUTE or changing the channel when one comes on, and I have yet to see one that is even related to the truth. From having overaged little girls whimpering that Romney is going to force EMPLOYERS to DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN !!!!! to the bald-faced lie that Romney is going to implement huge tax cuts for the very rich, their ad campaign is a litany of lies and a portrait of desperation.
And I think the Obama campaign is nervous, waiting for the hole cards to be revealed. So far all they have really had to deal with from R/R has been the economy and a little comment about Libya, but they know, just as we know, what is lying there on the table waiting to be turned over. There is Fast and Furious, with the knowledge that this is not just about letting guns cross the border, it is about the administration aligning itself with a Mexican drug cartel and arming it, and deeming brown-skinned people expendable in their pursuit of political gain. There is how much money stuck to what fingers in the various OPM giveaways—-the “stimulus” and Solyndra, etc. There is the comment that if Congress won’t do what Obama wants, he will get it done on his own, linked to the spate of Executive Orders. There is the reality of the actual cost of the so-called “health care” plan. There is the mess of our foreign policy, and the failure of the egomaniacal promise that merely having Barry in the White House will make radical Islam like us.
Amazona as disjointed as that is it defines moreso what people who feel like you politically will do and were committed to do no matter who the GOP candidate was nothing more. We’ll all see on election night. If Romney wins I’ll be the first person to congratulate you on the victory because the Democrats in Congress while working to keep ObamaCare in tact will not act as the Party of No against him. That you can count on.
You seem quite proud of sneering at the GOP as the “Party of No” but those of us who have fought the good fight to slow, if not completely stop, the encroachment of radical Leftism on our Constitutional form of government are quite proud of it.
What you people absolutely do not get is that this is not a personality contest, this is not a petty ego struggle to see who “wins”, this is a very serious, very real, battle between two opposing ideologies. You people are quite content with the bread and circuses supplied to you to keep you coming back to the voting booth and haranguing the opposition, but your abject ignorance of what is really at stake never fails to come through.
You prove this by simpering your belief that the Right merely wants to be obstructionist but not putting it in the context of WHY.
When Colorado Springs was in danger of losing even more homes and lives, I watched the heroic efforts of the firefighters to slow down, if not yet stop, the fire, and this image came to mind when I was typing this. To someone as shallow as you, as committed as you are to a system for the most superficial of reasons and worse yet for the illusions of reasons, sneering at those of us who understand what will be lost if we do not hold the line as merely some petty “Party of No” is like using the same slur to describe the firefighters.
I saw them choose two houses that they thought they could defend, because of their construction, and set up a line and declare that this was where they were going to stand. And I see the Constitutional Conservative Movement doing the same thing. We are so different from you, because we are fighting for a cause we understand, fully aware of the consequences of losing, and you are squabbling for a clutter of shallow “issues” like what to call a union of two people.
PARTY OF NO? You’re damned right, when the NO is about the takeover of our nation by a political system antithetical to its very foundational beliefs and structure.
Diane, why don’t you explain to us just how this DENYING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN thing is supposed to work.
Does Romney plan to integrate this with a plan to reduce unemployment by hiring people to lurk outside OB/GYN clinics to intercept women who try to slink in for HEALTH CARE? How is he going to get Lib employers to go along with this nefarious scheme?
And will women be DENIED HEALTH CARE for all medical reasons, or just reproductive ones? Will the determination to DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN include treatment for conditions such as Ann Romney’s? If a man and a woman are in a car wreck, will only the man be treated while the woman is DENIED ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE????
After all, Obama is running an ad claiming that the plan of Romney will DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN. I know what that means, if it is true. Do Left-leaning women understand the insanity of this lie? Or do you just not care? Not care that it is insane, not care that it is a lie?
(We were laughing about it at lunch yesterday, and I suggested a TV spot with the Spy vs Spy characters [sorry, Spook] lurking outside doctor’s offices and darting out to snatch up women trying to enter, complete with ominous music.)
Forget about women going into garbage-strewn alleys looking for people with filthy coat hangers to help them kill their babies (a favorite image of the RRL Death Promoters)—we would have doctors masquerading as hair stylists, so women could pretend they were having their hair cut and slip into the back room for some surreptitious “health care”.
Amazona I hear this constitutional conservative meme everywhere on the Internet and it rings hollow. The sitting President has done nothing that is extra constitutional in his administration. Had he done so I am sure the Congress would have taken the appropriate action by now. And btw if he is relected none of your freedoms will be taken because no matter how you lean politically, the man is working every day to make your nation better for everyone not just those who are of his race, his class or his political party. Now the Constitution can’t protect you for having what you believe are traditional norms turned on their head and causing your feelings to be hurt. For that I suggest you go talk to a shrink and get over it.
Diane, thank you for your efforts to fully illustrate the utter disconnect from reality represented by the RRL and its minions.
“…this constitutional conservative meme ……..rings hollow.”
Oh, so you think it is just a “meme” and not a genuine political model? And you find it “hollow”? Very interesting. Not surprising, just interesting.
“The sitting President has done nothing that is extra constitutional in his administration.”
So far the only part of the “health care plan” that has received official Constitutional scrutiny is the mandate to buy health insurance, and that single Constitutional compliance is quite tightly written and quite restrictive. It says only that there is a Constitutional ability to tax people for failing to enter into a contract—as insurance is a contract. It does not address, in any way shape or form,the Constitutionality of the federal government embarking on a program so far afield from its enumerated duties.
You ignore the presidential order to interfere with the Welfare Reform law by allowing states to waive work requirements.
You overlook the presidential edicts, such as the illegal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, the refusal to allow drilling off the Atlantic coast, the executive order just handing over, without Congressional participation, vast unilateral power to the EPA.
You ignore the Constitutional requirement, stated in the Oath of Office of the President, to uphold the laws of the nation, a requirement ignored when the President declared that the government would pick and choose which laws to enforce, ranging from immigration laws to welfare work requirement laws to voter intimidation laws to organized crime laws (referring here to the NBP issuing a bounty on the head of a US citizen) to illegally arming a criminal segment of a neighboring country.
You dismiss the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on the federal government, and so ignore the extra-Constitutional interference in and takeover of private industry (GM) and the use of taxpayer money to fund highly suspect businesses run by Obama cronies.
I find that the only way the Left can claim Obama is strictly adhering to the Constitution is to simply ignore what the Constitution says.
“…the man is working every day to make your nation better …” but BETTER is defined by his, and your, world view, and not by the terms upon which the nation was founded and upon which it flourished for so long.
You do understand, don’t you, that “better” is a highly—-no, COMPLETELY—-subjective word, dependent completely upon a personal opinion. In the case of the True Left, it is a complete restructuring into a wholly collective society, with limited if not prohibited ownership of private property, state-run confiscation of wealth for redistribution by the state, the abolishment of the free market system of economics, and he restriction if not abolishment of capitalism.
To the giddy Pseudo Left it is a darling little treasure chest of beloved icons, social issues, and illusions which appeal to the emotions.
But to the Right, it is the reestablishment of a Constitutional form of government, with a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most power reserved to the states o to the people, a nation in which the purpose of the federal government is protection and security and not charity or social issues, and the freedom of the market place and the capitalist system, with equal opportunity for all.
And this latter is most definitely NOT what the President is “..working every day…” to accomplish. Rather, he is working every day to diminish the Unites States as an economic power and a military power, to fit in with his own personal definition of “better”—-and that is of a nation that is on par with every other nation in the world, and not better in any way.
“Now the Constitution can’t protect you for having what you believe are traditional norms turned on their head and causing your feelings to be hurt.”
See, now you are just being stupid. No one has ever suggested that the role of the Constitution is or ever has been to protect the FEELINGS of people. Well, no one on the Right, anyway.
I find it telling that you are so willing to trivialize Constitutional law, and protections, in this way. While it definitely illustrates a very small and petty way of looking at the world, it also showcases a deep ignorance regarding, and probably contempt for, the Constitution.
“For that I suggest you go talk to a shrink and get over it.”
And here we have the synthesis of what passes for Leftist political commentary—-a litany of lies mixed with ignorance, topped with a dollop of snot.
Diane, still waiting for you to explain just how you Lefties believe Mitt Romney will force employers to DENY ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN.
This claim is a key component of the Obama campaign. They spent a lot of money to create this ad and even more to keep running it, and Barry said, complete with video clip at the end, that he “approves this message”. So you guys must be ready to explain it and defend it, eh?
And Diane, while you are explaining the veracity of the Obama campaign’s ads, please tell us just what “massive tax break for the very rich” President Romney would implement.
Now remember, your side is insisting that eliminating the Bush tax RATE cuts is not, most definitely NOT, a tax rate hike, no sirree, not in a million years, huh-uh, get that silly notion out of your head, no tax hike, no way. It is just allowing something to expire, doncha see? And if taxes then go up, well, that is just something that happened to occur.
So given this insistence, clearly allowing those tax RATE cuts to continue cannot be considered a tax REDUCTION, now can it?
Or—-can it? By the time it spins through the murky mental filters of the RRL, evidently it can.
Going up is not a raise, but staying the same is a cut.
Got it.
They remind me a lot of Baghdad Bob.
Great analogy. Like I said earlier, they are more than a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Spook,
I can’t believe people would vote for this economy along with the massive deficit spending. The US is resilient, but it may take our children’s grand kids to fight there way out of economic mess. We are approaching the point of no return IMHO
Spook,
That is just the thing – reality indicates a big Romney win coming so, naturally, our liberals key in on the unreality known as television news which is telling them the fairy story of Obama’s strength. Rush was pointing out that the recent polls showing Obama blowing Romney away in Ohio had Obama being better trusted on economic matters. Really? Does that seem in any way, shape or form credible given the economic reality we’re living in? No, it doesn’t – and therefor, it is not the reality. It is a made up poll – I’m serious; something just grasped out of thin air and reported as news…and with endless liberal yammering about how its Romney’s 47% statement (which probably not 1 in 10 Americans have actually heard…our liberals forget just how few people actually watch the MSM these days; they forget ,that is, that they are in a bubble) which is making the difference.
It is monumentally stupid – Obama is going to lose and lose by a substantial margin. Of course, when that happens our liberals will be rife with stories about how we stole the election and what will their evidence be? All those polls which showed Obama leading…
This morning on the Obama reelection network, otherwise known as MSNBC, Obama was AGAIN perpetuating class warfare, and outright lying to foam up his base, by saying that Romney pays a lower tax rate than the $50,000 truck driver.
That’s just a lie:
IRS data, though, shows that Romney’s effective income tax rate — that’s what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in — is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it’s certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.
IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate — also lower than Romney’s.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz27gOr7hcJ
This is just to rich, no pun intended. The 1st paragraph in the Fox “News” article is this:
President Obama’s campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a “lower rate” than someone making $50,000 a year.
I’ll ignore the italics around the words lower rate, but point out that Fox IS the media. Or at least a large part of it. Funny how they never want to admit that, unless they are congratulating themselves about something.
No one knows what the outcome of the election will be until it occurs, so at a certain point it becomes an academic argument to discuss the validity of the polls. We can argue forever about the polling methodology, but it is obvious that the right lives in a bubble. Devoid of even the possibility of accepting some of the polling data as being reliable. (See today’s Michael Tomasky’s article) The big bad media has access to far more data than any of us have so to make a prediction about the outcome of the election; with so much certainty, based upon your own opinions and from the opinions of family and friends is foolish. But along with statistics and polling, there is also probability and outcome. So based upon the preponderance of the polling data; which is available to everyone, the odds of Obama winning are higher than Romney. The caveat being; at this point in time. Karl Rove once said, with the same certainty, the he had “the” math. Turned out he didn’t. My question for all of you is, how will you react if Obama does win? What if all of your bluster becomes just that, an investment in world view that is not shared by the majority and where the candidate himself is irrelevant. The GOP could have nominated anyone, and your knee jerk, programed response to defend he or she would have been the same. There is allot of talk about critical thinking on this blog and the irony is that so few seem to actually engage in it. If Mr. Romney had a core, if he didn’t contradict himself with such predictable frequency, if he hadn’t pandered to the extreme right, if he defended his record as governor, if he got his facts first and spoke after, if he was more forthcoming about his wealth and his taxes and actually honored what he said about being disqualified from running if he didn’t take all of the exemptions he was legally able to claim and if he was, yes, likeable, he might have a better chance. I read once that in order to win an election,especially a Presidential one, a person needs 3 things. They need to be motivated. They need to explain in easily understandable terms why they want to be president. Not speak in platitudes. They need passion. Phoniness and pretension isn’t honest. And lastly, they need to be spontaneous. They need to be able to engage in conversations that are not scripted and discuss the ideas they have with the aforementioned passion. The only time that Mr.Romney was so, he disregarded 47% of the country. THAT’S who he is and that’s what he believes. And now he’s twirling like a Dervish trying to undo something he claims he isn’t. Except that, in a moment of true spontaneity, he reveled what he really thinks. And, according to those pesky polls, most people don’t care much for his core beliefs.
” My question for all of you is, how will you react if Obama does win?”
The same thing we did last time. DUH.
My question for all of you is, how will you react if Obama does win?
Mitch, virtually every Conservative I know, (and being heavily involved in the Tea Party movement, I know quite a few Conservatives) is prepared for that eventuality. Ironically, I think, if Obama wins, we’ll just continue on our present downward path. If Romney wins, I think we’ll see some significance violence on the part of entitlementarians, as they realize the gravy train is about to come to a halt. And I think most Conservatives are prepared for that eventuality too.
Bottom line; if enough people decide they like the direction Obama is taking the country (the 35% right track, 65% wrong track polls would seem to contradict that), then we deserve the government we get.
I appreciate you honesty Spook, but I seriously doubt rioting will occur. That’s a bit over the top, as they say. I’m sure you will still gladly accept your SS and Medicare benefits though.
I’m sure you will still gladly accept your SS and Medicare benefits though.
Benefits of which Spook PAID into, and having served our country, has EARNED. And at least those benefits will be there for him, because they most likely won’t be there for you. Obama has NO plans to reform the soon-to-be-bankrupt programs.
Spook,
Obama can win. If the majority wants four more years of Obama then that is precisely what they’ll get. I think it will be an utter disaster for our nation – perhaps ultimately fatal to our nation (though it would be 20 years before that is known). But, whatever. My Christian faith forbids me to despair or to even worry overmuch (or, indeed, at all) about such things. I don’t believe Obama will win – I think the reality of America is running fast towards an electoral blowout for Romney. But, we’ll see…and one thing is certain, if Romney loses, none of us are going to riot.
Mitch,
Can you admit that Obama is lying when he says that Romney pays a lower tax rate than the middle class?
And how will I react to an Obama win? Much like I did last time, with the exception that I reduce my spending even further. My home is paid for, as are my cars, and I carry very little debt, so I will probably pay the debt off and hunker down, because I will assure you that energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket” as will inflation.
It’s hard to compete with Other People’s Money, various vote buying schemes and the expansion of the dependent class.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DtpAOwJvTOio
Pathetic.
No one is concerned (the democrats and their drones) that eventually the cash will dry up. This unpatriotic spending and debt accumulation is unsustainable.
This exemplifies the perception that Mr. Romney has no core. During an interview in Ohio yesterday, Romney was drawing attention to his signature accomplishment as governor. Health care for the citizens of Massachusetts. He was expressing pride in this, in an effort to show how empathetic he is and to counter the damage his 47% comment has inflicted upon his campaign. Another rare moment of spontaneity.
Now how does this square with his constant refrain that within the first 15 minutes of his presidency, he will repeal Universal Health Care. Never mind that it is congress that has to repeal it and never mind that members of congress get their health insurance paid for. I’d like to know how he can defend what he did in his state, but want to deny it for the United States. Especially since the law in Mass. was the template for the law congress passed and was upheld by the Supreme Court. Do you see a conflict here or am I just biased?
Does anyone else want to try to explain to mitche the difference between a state and the federal government? Anyone? Because no matter how often we go through this, he just can’t seem to grasp the concept that there even IS a difference, much less what it is.
The Left’s beloved wikipedia explains: “The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.”
Clearly, this has poor mitche completely bumfuddled. Huh? Duh? Whatchoo MEAN, states? Whatchoo MEAN, granted? Whatchoo MEAN, prohibited? ????????????
OK—one more time.
The Constitution enumerates 17 assigned duties to the federal government. Providing health care to citizens is simply not among those enumerated duties. The federal government is not just allowed to do these things, it is tasked with doing them. They outline its job—ITS ONLY JOB. The Constitution says, to the federal government, “this is what you have to do”.
Then, just to make sure there is no confusion about what the federal government can or cannot do, the same writers added a clincher, in the form of the 10th Amendment, to make absolutely sure that no one could mistakenly think the federal government could legally expand these duties to include anything not specified, or enumerated.
(Anyone think mitche has been able to follow this so far? It seems doubtful, but …..)
OK, so they wrote a clear and concise LIMITATION to rein in those who might think that it would be legal for the federal government to exceed the boundaries set forth in the Constitution, to add to the enumerated powers, to expand the scope of the federal government to include things not stated.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, typing very slowly to give mitche a chance to keep up, the power to use the federal government to implement or pay for health care is not delegated to it by the Constitution. That means it is not allowed to the federal government. If it is not stated, delegated, enumerated, assigned, it is prohibited. Period.
It is also not prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Therefore, it is RESERVED to the States, if they so choose. Therefore, it is legal, Constitutional, and CONSISTENT to find that while having states implement some kind of health care plan is OK, it is most definitely NOT OK for the feds.
(He’ll be back with the same old whine, you can count on it. His level of stupidity, coupled with his kneepad allegiance to a system he doesn’t understand any more than he understands the 10th Amendment, pretty much guarantees it.)
Poor sad, silly, foolish mitche, still claiming that the United States Supreme Court actually ruled on the constitutionality of the entire “health care” law.
“Do you see a conflict here or am I just biased?”
You are not just biased, you are dumb as dirt.
How else could you say something as stupid as “I’d like to know how he can defend what he did in his state, but want to deny it for the United States.”
Do you see a conflict here or am I just biased? – Mitch
No, you’re just stupid. But we have all known that for sometime now. As Amazona pointed out, there are two separate entities you are conflating – Federal vs State.
Please learn the difference.
cluster, you’re the stupid one.
the federal government can institute any tax it wishes to influence purchasing or the refusal of purchasing by private citizens.
In this case, the federal government decided to implement a tax for not purchasing health insurance in 2014. The SC of the US decided that this was in fact constitutional.
It has NOTHING to do with the 10th amendment.
In this case, the federal government decided to implement a tax for not purchasing health insurance in 2014.
No that’s not it at all James.
You are hilariously stupid. The government sold it as a mandate. The SC turned into a tax. Please think before posting.
and that makes it wrong? or unconstitutional?
the court could have said it’s a fart, and it rule it legal, and it would have been ok.
just because you don’t like the ruling, doesn’t mean its wrong. In fact, the vanguard of our constitution clearly stated that the government has the RIGHT and AUTHORITY to tax people. PERIOD. this is a Tax.
Think before posting sport. you’re wrong, I am right. Period.
Mitch,
You just, apparently, do not understand the difference between State and Federal governments,the enumerated duties of the Federal government, and what is allowed at the State level that is not allowed at the Federal.
db,
the federal government has the right to institute health care. this was already decided by the Supreme Court. When the court ruled that the government under its taxing powers can force people to purchase something, or influence their purchasing behavior, the issue was settled.
just like there is a tax on cigarrettes, there is a tax starting in 2014 if you decide not to purchase health insurance.
There is no dichotomy between the constitution and the law.
…the federal government has the right to institute health care. this was already decided by the Supreme Court. When the court ruled that the government under its taxing powers can force people to purchase something – James
But this was not how the mandate was sold. Obama lied to the American public again and sold it as a personal mandate, claiming it was not a tax, then changed course when he got to the SC. Really weird how you are ok with Obama constantly lying to Americans.
Cluster,
Sooo…Romney can evolve and change his mind….and present HIS own views in different ways…but NOBODY else can.
The main argument of the solicitor general was that it’s a mandate and if you don’t follow it, you pay a penalty. The court called it a tax, you can call it a fart for all I care…its still CONSTITUTIONAL and the law of the land.