Manhattan Buckeye;1262881 wrote:"Like it or not, he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

What? The late Ronald Reagan is the leader of the GOP. My wife is pro-choice. She supports abortion in the first trimester even if it is an irresponsible choice, and thinks Sandra Fluke is the biggest idiot on the planet (she works in Pharma, Fluke is an absolute liar with her birth control expenses claims) and has never voted for a Democrat in her life and we won't considering how hard left it turned. We believe in building people up from the bottom rather than tearing the top down. If that makes us evil, fine. I'd rather be evil than stupid.

Maybe that's why they lost in '08. Corpses make pretty bad leaders...

Heretic;1262964 wrote:Maybe that's why they lost in '08. Corpses make pretty bad leaders...

But they can still fill out a suit just like Obama :laugh:

gut;1262988 wrote:But they can still fill out a suit just like Obama :laugh:

Particularly when it is empty. Zing!

On a slightly different tack, it would seem that Chris Matthews is making a play for the Presidency of the Batsht Crazy Society.

I always figured that if Bill Clinton landed on Mars. He would know how to do it with them. He would know how to reproduce. He would know everything. He would just instinctively know how to talk to people. They would be laughing in about five minutes. The Martians.

Words fail me.

Oh, you betchya Clinton would figure out how to reproduce. He's not exactly picky, either.

Not sure if anyone has seen this but Romney is pulling out of Michigan and Pennslyvania!

Ty Webb;1263053 wrote:Not sure if anyone has seen this but Romney is pulling out of Michigan and Pennslyvania!

The PACs are pulling TV ads. Romney never spent a dime in either state to start with.

fish82;1263129 wrote:The PACs are pulling TV ads. Romney never spent a dime in either state to start with.

I wish all of the batshit retard PACs would pull all of their ads everywhere, on both sides.

fish82;1263129 wrote:The PACs are pulling TV ads. Romney never spent a dime in either state to start with.

And he just got access to a boatload of money a week ago. I wouldn't expect them to say too much about their strategy.

ts1227;1263133 wrote:I wish all of the bat**** retard PACs would pull all of their ads everywhere, on both sides.

No argument. On the flip side, think of the batshit retards who are actually swayed by them. :laugh:

fish82;1263142 wrote:No argument. On the flip side, think of the batshit retards who are actually swayed by them. :laugh:

I get angry when I think about that :mad:

gut;1262954 wrote:I'm going to 100% disagree with you. Ignoring that any savvy business would have to crunch the numbers (and a tax cut being far easier and more certain to value than "potential" healthcare savings), the reality is like half of businesses DON'T provide any healthcare. Healthcare is something that is managed closely because you can move the needle with little to no impact on your workers (until someone actually needs it). But a few grand in marginal savings (if that) is not nearly enough to move the needle in the decision to add a worker. It's not lack of profits or cash that prevents the hiring of more workers today, so it's dubious to think some healthcare savings will lead to more hiring or higher wages.

Now, do you put more money in the pockets of business with healthcare reform or tax cuts? That's a much more interesting debate, but again indeterminate under some unknown quantity of healthcare savings. And the reality is that Obamakare is a TAX INCREASE for those businesses not currently providing health benefits. So perhaps it would be a total comp increase for 98% of workers, and a 100% decrease for the rest.

Your comment is entirely true for companies providing health benefits to retirees. That is, of course, what really put the Big 3 into trouble. But that's primarily for union shops, and it's going the way of the dodo bird. Companies long ago began shifting away from defined benefit pensions for salaried workers and went to 401k's.

Please provide the source for half of business don't provide any healthcare. Then look at the size of the business. The ACA only applies to business under 50 employees.

fish82;1263142 wrote:No argument. On the flip side, think of the bat**** retards who are actually swayed by them. :laugh:

I view it as balancing the union attack barrage / collectivism. I'm not a fan of my vote being marginalized by big, deep pocketed unions, either (the member group think is already bad enough). And then you have the liberal bias in the media.

Anyway, I believe strongly that people who pay taxes have a right to be heard. I also disagree that greed thru tax cuts is the driving factor - every business owner I've ever met knows intimately well that a robust economy butters the bread far better than tax cuts. So to the extent that their "greed" is expressed for a desire for a strong economy I don't feel that's misaligned with my interests or really the nation as a whole.

Bigdogg;1263154 wrote:Please provide the source for half of business don't provide any healthcare. Then look at the size of the business. The ACA only applies to business under 50 employees.

My bad, the number is 40% that don't offer health insurance (but higher for small businesses)
http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=2&sn=17&p=1

You're right about the credit. The number for businesses over 50 providing insurance is 93%. Begs the question, was this a solution in search of a problem?

After giving up on Michigan and PA, Romney HAS to sweep Ohio,Florida,and Virginia to even have a chance

Ty Webb;1263190 wrote:After giving up on Michigan and PA, Romney HAS to sweep Ohio,Florida,and Virginia to even have a chance

He's not giving up. Wishful thinking from desperate Democrats.

Are you on some propaganda mailing list to try to convince people Obama is winning this election or something?

gut;1263195 wrote:He's not giving up. Wishful thinking from desperate Democrats.

Are you on some propaganda mailing list to try to convince people Obama is winning this election or something?

Bear in mind, we're talking about the guy who was quoting polls and guaranteeing the dems would hold the House two years ago.

fish82;1263198 wrote:Bear in mind, we're talking about the guy who was quoting polls and guaranteeing the dems would hold the House two years ago.

Super Pacs are funding pretty much Romneys entire campaign....if They are pulling out of those two states,it means Romney has given up on them. Plain and simple

And gut....right now....he is winning

Ty Webb;1263223 wrote: And gut....right now....he is winning

The desperation is strong in this one...

It's a complete toss-up. The states that always decide these elections are all very much in play.

gut;1263238 wrote:The desperation is strong in this one...

It's a complete toss-up. The states that always decide these elections are all very much in play.

Indeed. I wonder if Gibby and QuakerOats are twins separated at birth, since both seem convinced this election will be a landslide in the favorite of different candidates.

gut;1263238 wrote:The desperation is strong in this one...

It's a complete toss-up. The states that always decide these elections are all very much in play.

I'm not saying its not competitive.... But Presidebt Obams IS winning right now...


I'm desperate?? Look at the EC projections

Heretic;1263240 wrote:Indeed. I wonder if Gibby and QuakerOats are twins separated at birth, since both seem convinced this election will be a landslide in the favorite of different candidates.

Did I say its going to be a landslide? No

Is President Obama ahead right now? Yes

Is it going to be somewhat close? Probably

Is it going to be hard for Romney to win? Yes

Ty Webb;1263223 wrote:Super Pacs are funding pretty much Romneys entire campaign....if They are pulling out of those two states,it means Romney has given up on them. Plain and simple

And gut....right now....he is winning

Your utter lack of political acumen never ceases to impress.

Heretic;1263240 wrote:Indeed. I wonder if Gibby and QuakerOats are twins separated at birth, since both seem convinced this election will be a landslide in the favorite of different candidates.

I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see polls reflecting an overall expected lack of enthusiasm for this race, which means they are wildly inaccurate (at least, compared to prior elections). A) I think most of these polls are going to say they'll vote, whether they plan to or not and B) it's a lot easier to answer a few questions from your coach than actually go to vote for someone you don't care for.

I also think the polls have been heavily influenced by a gap in "popularity" between Romney and Obama. A gap which appears to have largely closed after the RNC, but one that could ultimately end-up reversing or becoming wider after the debates. Also, bear in mind most of the ads we've been seeing are SuperPac generated but now Romney has access to a bunch of new capital.

Romney is a much better and more polished candidate than 6 months ago, and if he can continue to rise to the challenge he can still make large gains. Aside from the debates, the other large hurdle is overcoming the attack ads that have painted him as an out-of-touch, evil rich outsourcer. That's definitely worth a few points. Remains to be seen how effective he can be there, but the RNC was a good start.

If you look at polls from even 3 months ago, many were saying Romney had no chance. If that trend continues it would not be surprising to see an easy Romney victory. I think it will be close, but if you skew to the far left or far right on Romney's ability to be likeable and perform in debates, then a landslide either way could be justified (just not particularly reasonable).

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/steelworker-featured-at-dnc-didnt-work-for-bain/

Yikes, a BIG lie from a union organizer .......say it ain't so.