Compromise has been a bad word in conservative circles for decades. There's no interest in that, at all.
Giddyup possesses a magical power via which words mean to him whatever he wants them to mean. He is strict on semantics when it suits him and ridicules the notion that words mean what they mean when not. The power is called the "la la la, I can't hear you, but I'm going to keep talking anyway, for five days after you've gotten frustrated and gone" power.
Romney's incrimination includes all the entitlements: healthcare, food, housing and "other." Clearly 47% of the population do not fit that characterization-- particularly Seniors and Veterans. This remark kind of stands alone. Has it's summary meaning been a central figure of his campaign message? No. Right there you know it is an aberration... so quit trying to make it a one sentence summary of the Romney candidacy.
I'm not trying to make it a one sentence summary of anything. But you are trying to ignore part of what would be included in what Romney said.
What I'm ignoring is your selective conjecture. You keep forgetting that I've admitted that what Romney said is wacky. It was not meant for public consumption; it was meant to open up some checkbooks for fundraising. There is no way to construe who or what he really meant because none of the math works. So you take 30 seconds of remarks and re-cast them in the worst way possible and you are fine with that? I'm not. I give Obama and Biden wide berths most of the time. I was watching something on the History Channel this afternoon. Most Americans did not even know that FDR was unable to walk until he had died during his fourth term in office. Things are sure different today and our politics is worse for it.
Right, so you choose to ignore portions of those that are naturally insulted by what Romney said, while I don't ignore that he claimed that about veterans and senior citizens. You can make up whatever reasons for why he said that, and why it shouldn't really matter. That's up to you. Rationalize it anyway you need to in order to feel better. I'm not going to rationalize what Romney said. I look at his words, and who those words represent. That's the only information I'm using in making my decisions about what he said. You are choosing to write off what he said because it was only said to raise money. The math of what he said doesn't add up so he couldn't have meant to include the groups of veterans and senior citizens that I keep bringing up. It goes on and on. Looking at this thread you've done nothing but list excuses why Romney's words mean something different than what they mean. You are entitled to do that, but don't act like other people are crazy for not buying your excuses for Romney, and instead taking Romney at his own words.
I have ignored nothing while you have ignored days and days of accumulated Romeney audio or video tape that do not confirm the bombshell that you credit these 30 seconds with... My effort has been to point out that Romney's remarks don't just and probably don't at all mean the meaning that you've insisted upon.
Romney's remarks speak for themselves... unless you choose to make excuses why they mean something different. Romney has videos and clips all over the place, because he flip flops day and night. The guy is all over the place. These words are significant because it wasn't in a speech. It was where he thought he could speak and it wouldn't be made public. You choose to believe whatever you want, giddy. As I've said that's fine. But don't claim others are doing something wrong by not buying into your rationalizations for Romney said when he thought he was free to speak his mind.
You're right. My dogs got on the computer and did it. They're not quite there yet, but their getting better.
I expect Romney is going to be willing to compromise on a lot of stuff, just like Obama was. My concern is with a recalcitrant Congress. Congressmen know they are not individually punished for being stubborn, and they've demonstrated their first loyalty is to their Parties. If Obama wins, Republican congressmen will probably continue to block things, hoping to prepare the field for a presidential race without an incumbent. If Romney wins, Democrats will probably engage in a lot of payback. Everybody, please vote out all your congressmen next month, whether you like them or not. Holding Congress accountable will do a lot more to empower the People than any decision regarding the Presidency. They wrote this one too. You can tell because they chose the wrong word for "they're."
Sadly that mistake was my own failing to make corrections based on suggested spelling given to me. I was going to have my dogs proofread it, but they were busy chewing on rope toys. Sorry.
Can someone explain this to me? I was thinking about the premise of healthcare being provided at the state level, but not the national level. I always hear the counter argument being, "People get sick the same way everywhere, why do different states need different healthcare policies?" Somebody elaborate on this for me, why is state level healthcare ok, but not national level? Does state government really run so much more efficiently?
The differences in major med healthcare policies from state to state are generally minor, like a $400 limit instead of a $500 limit for a specific cause. I'd estimate that they conform with one another 90-95% of content. Each state sets minimums which must be met or exceeded.
