Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

waco1909 wrote:

Illuminati...had to stop in for a second on this one.If TSF Is a liar..if what he said is not true...then PROVE it buddy...or are you just gonna"opinion"everyb ody to death?

I forgot to mention that Romney had left Bain two years before the the Bankruptcy. Plug those facts into the scenario by TSF and assess his honesty objectively.

Illuminati wrote:

<quoted text>I forgot to mention that Romney had left Bain two years before the the Bankruptcy. Plug those facts into the scenario by TSF and assess his honesty objectively.

I don't see anyone disputing what you said.You gave me what I asked for.

Illuminati wrote:

<quoted text>I forgot to mention that Romney had left Bain two years before the the Bankruptcy. Plug those facts into the scenario by TSF and assess his honesty objectively.

if he could not stop a bankrupting company (which is what bain does), what makes you think he can do any better than Obama?

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> I don't see anyone disputing what you said.You gave me what I asked for.

haha. waco. wtf?

sevenSecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
haha. waco. wtf?

I think he's trying to keep a low profile.The jerk follows me around constantly.left wing punk is what he is.

Tell that to the 1800 people who lost their jobs at Georgetown steel and Holsen Photo. Those 1800 "talking points" have names. I bet they will not be voting for Mr "I love to fire people" Romney.
So you are paying attention? What country did "Mitt" (not his real name) bank the profits from this episode of vulture capitalism? Hint: It wasn't the USA.

Illuminati wrote:

<quoted text>Repeating democratic talking points might work with people who are not paying attention, but half truths and selective facts do not carrt much weight with informed voters. People like you hope to influence those who are not informed with your talking points. You are as dishonestr as any politician on either side of the argument.

Mass. lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs while Romney was governor. Then Romney outsourced state jobs to India and buried the state under a mountain of debt. Much of that debt was so he could give tax breaks to the rich , including himself. So what has he promised to do on "day 1" ? You guessed it, more tax breaks to the rich.

TSF wrote:

Mass. lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs while Romney was governor. Then Romney outsourced state jobs to India and buried the state under a mountain of debt. Much of that debt was so he could give tax breaks to the rich , including himself. So what has he promised to do on "day 1" ? You guessed it, more tax breaks to the rich.

Massachuesetts is the most liberal state in the union. Manufacturing has been leaving that state for decades. The strongly Democrat legislature set spending and tax policies; you should know that unless you're ignorant or maybe just intellectually dishonest.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Massachuesetts is the most liberal state in the union. Manufacturing has been leaving that state for decades. The strongly Democrat legislature set spending and tax policies; you should know that unless you're ignorant or maybe just intellectually dishonest.

i ask you guys a second time. How is Romney going to fix this economy, let alone do better than Obama? Dont tell me some half-baked observation about what you think will happen because of obamacare based on loose economic speculation.

Looks like Obama just stole Rubio's thunder. Republicans are outraged. Is it because Obama beat them to the draw or because Romney agrees with Obama?

Romney has promised to cut taxes for the rich but now, even Neil Bush admits that the only possible way out of this debt/deficit problem is to raise revenue AND cut entitlements.

sevenSecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
i ask you guys a second time. How is Romney going to fix this economy, let alone do better than Obama? Dont tell me some half-baked observation about what you think will happen because of obamacare based on loose economic speculation.

Romney has a new political ad featuring out of work Americans. It ends with: "I Mitt Romney and I fired all these people

Romney is the best the republicans have.oh my.

sevenSecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
if he could not stop a bankrupting company (which is what bain does), what makes you think he can do any better than Obama?

Again, have you heard of Solyndra? Obama loaned John Corzine (the man he said he called when things were a mess) enough money to float everybody in the U.S. with solar panels to get this company up and going. Obama was right, call John Corzine when things are a mess because he will forget what he did with the money the government loaned Solyndra and then the company goes bankrupt and you've got a bigger mess. This bankrupt company has Obama's name all over, if not literally, because he loaned the money, showed off his big, new green initiative company, once the company was floundering made sure the government secured more loans and it still went bankrupt. This makes me think Obama can't do any better than Romney because more than the state of MA and Bain, we the whole U.S. are still on the hook for the money given/stolen by Solyndra.

TSF wrote:

Romney has promised to cut taxes for the rich but now, even Neil Bush admits that the only possible way out of this debt/deficit problem is to raise revenue AND cut entitlements.
<quoted text>

Romney has promised tax reform which is badly needed. Our tax code is hugely complex and and inefficent at its core purpose which is to collect revenue. Every time a Republican president has agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts, the tax increases happened but the spending cuts did not. It happened to Reagan and to Bush 41. Bush 41's tax increase broke his no new taxes pledge and helped throw us into recession. It also cost him a second term.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Obamacare is meant to be an politically acceptable step to single payer. If single payer ever happens you will see a dramatic drop in health care availability. No one is required to practice medicine and if providers are not compensated commensurate with their education and training they will choose some other vocation.

I understand the republican theory.
And a single payer system does not need lower any pay for doctors.
A single payer system does not stop you from buying regular insurance and going to a doctor that does not accept the government system.

And thanks for confirming Obama care is just a compromise to the republicans. So when you bash it, remember it is not really what democrats want so much as the republicans.

Do you think a single payer system would hurt the economy?

I think it would keep a lot more money in the pockets of average Joe. They would have good preventative health and thus be more able to work productively.
It would certainly cost business less. Which seems to be your main concern.

Robert Stowe wrote:

<quoted text>Obamacare is meant to be an politically acceptable step to single payer. If single payer ever happens you will see a dramatic drop in health care availability. No one is required to practice medicine and if providers are not compensated commensurate with their education and training they will choose some other vocation.

And I disagree that a single payer system would cause a dramatic drop in health care availability.
Elective surgery may not be given priority, but I think if you wish for that, you could have a private insurance cover it and a private doctor do it.

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

The video is not on line. Can you not use your own words to make your points?

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I understand the republican theory.
And a single payer system does not need lower any pay for doctors.
A single payer system does not stop you from buying regular insurance and going to a doctor that does not accept the government system.
And thanks for confirming Obama care is just a compromise to the republicans. So when you bash it, remember it is not really what democrats want so much as the republicans.
Do you think a single payer system would hurt the economy?
I think it would keep a lot more money in the pockets of average Joe. They would have good preventative health and thus be more able to work productively.
It would certainly cost business less. Which seems to be your main concern.

Ask the Canadians and the British about that Mike. Six month waits to see specialists and even longer waits for elective surgery. Single payer means just that. With that system there is no private alternative.

The point of this thread boils down to this. Liberals need conservatives but conservatives don't need liberals. If you split this nation in half and gave the best half to liberals and the rest to conservatives and confiscated the wealth of conservatives and gave it to liberals; the conservatives would overtake liberals in wealth and standard of living very quickly. The liberal half would be desititute also very quickly.