2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 422768]On Governor Romney's bill the Republicans and the Democrats worked together on it.

But, on the Health Care bill President Obama purposed, the Republicans sat on their collected thumbs.[/QUOTE]This is like shooting ducks in a shooting gallery, except that these ducks are too stupid to stay down after they've been shot.

Anyway, here's the response to your liberal [strike]lie[/strike] myth that [i]"Republicans sat on their collected thumbs'[/i]:

[quote]Anyway, to refute the claim that "Obama tried to work with Republicans", please cite just one Republican idea that was accepted by the Dems and subsequently included in the ObamaCare bill.

The fact is that the Republicans had dozens of ideas, all of which were in reality "stonewalled" by the Dems who refused even to allow any Republican amendments to be debated in the House committees or on the House floor.[/QUOTE]Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;422768]Also, Job bills have been proposed and the Republicans still sit on their thumbs. This has to be the worse congress that the Country has had.[/QUOTE]Those weren't jobs bills, they were tax-borrow-spend bills.

When will liberals ever learn that we cannot tax, borrow and spend our way to prosperity?

The answer is: They don't care, because borrowing money today allows them to payoff their supporters today while handing the bill to the taxpayers of tomorrow, all of which is an indirect method of redistributing wealth.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wow, Romney passing bipartisan healthcare reform in [i]Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's state[/i]! LMAO! Give me a break. That's like Obama working with Republicans on a tax cut. Furthermore, only 8% of Massachusetts residents were uninsured. It wasn't a monumental achievement.

On the other hand, Obama has faced the most obstructionist (Republican) party that perhaps this country has ever witnessed. They wanted to bring him down on healthcare to make it his "Waterloo", and have proclaimed their #1 goal is to defeat him. Rather difficult to get bipartisan support when that is what you're up against.

The Affordable Care Act has at least 2 Republican ideas: the individual mandate, and a private sector focus (no public option). Those are 2 core elements of the new law, and should have provided enough common ground to gain some bipartisan support. Of course Obama wanted bipartisan support on health care reform, it looks good when you do get it. But when (finally) he realized Republicans were against him, he and Dems forged ahead alone rather than not fulfill their campaign promise.

Real leadership means sometimes doing things that are unpopular, but the right thing to do.

I agree it is important that our elected officials be able to compromise. Unfortunately, Republicans signed a pledge to an outside interest group never to compromise on taxes.

Yes Esten, ObamaCare was so popular it lead to the Democratic slaughter in 2010. I think we need another one of those Democratic "success" stories again in 2012 as well.

ObamaCare was so well crafted it is about to be over turned in the Supreme Court. It is not a matter of if it will be over turned it is only a matter of if only the mandate or the entire piece of crap is going to be over turned.

If obstruction is what you want to talk about, how about the Democrat control Senate. For a Democrat it is compromise only if the Republicans surrender and go along, if not then it's obstruction. So what do you call a Senate which will not even bring up bills for debate on the floor after they have been passed by the publicly elected represenatives of the people in the House of Represenatives, to use the phrase so often thrown out there by Obama.

A majority party does not "control" Senate. Any senators can impede a bill they do not like through filibuster, which can be stopped by 60 senators. So. 41 senators of a minority party can stop legislation. Today, threats, rather than exercise, of filibuster are frequently used, and they are effective enough to stop or modify legislation.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;422788]If obstruction is what you want to talk about, how about the Democrat control Senate. For a Democrat it is compromise only if the Republicans surrender and go along, if not then it's obstruction. So what do you call a Senate which will not even bring up bills for debate on the floor after they have been passed by the publicly elected represenatives of the people in the House of Represenatives, to use the phrase so often thrown out there by Obama.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 422761]How exactly was Obamacare [i]"stonewalled"[/i] By the Republicans? The Dems passed the bill, remember?

Anyway, to refute the claim that [i]"Obama tried to work with Republicans"[/i], please cite just one Republican idea that was accepted by the Dems and subsequently included in the ObamaCare bill.

The fact is that the Republicans had dozens of ideas, all of which were in reality [i]"stonewalled"[/i] By the Dems who refused even to allow any Republican amendments to be debated in the House committees or on the House floor.

My point is that [i]"working with"[/i] Means compromising with the other party, not merely listening to and then subsequently dismissing their ideas. If the Dems had actually compromised with the Republicans (tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, portability, I. E.) then ObamaCare would have enjoyed something more than zero bi-partisan support.

We have every right to expect our politicians to work together and compromise in fashioning legislation that more of us could have supported. Unfortunately, that takes real leadership, a talent that Obama sorely lacks.

Sorry, but another liberal myth bites the dust.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

WT69 that is not quite true when Harry Reed, who controls what goes to floor for debate, will not even put the House bills before the Senate for debate. So you are being disingenuous when you mention the 60 vote requirement.

Senators can talk about anything and any bills at any time. Doesn't matter if Reid or minority leader stops particular agenda. Probably Reid did not bring the bill to the floor because there were no more than 60 supporters for the bill. Again, more than 41 senators, which include majority party members and leader as well as minority members, can stop any legislation. Senate is different from the House. Plus, I am not WT69.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;422795]WT69 that is not quite true when Harry Reed, who controls what goes to floor for debate, will not even put the House bills before the Senate for debate. So you are being disingenuous when you mention the 60 vote requirement.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;422793][url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas[/url][/QUOTE]Checkmate for WT69! Plenty of Republican ideas in the Affordable Care Act.

Sorry Jax.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422733]Those who can, do. They are called EMPLOYERS.

Those who can't, don't. They are called EMPLOYEES.[/QUOTE]This seems like an appropriate time to introduce a term that has sometimes occured to me when reading this thread. A new term never coined before, introduced right here on AP:

[b][i]Golden Businessman Syndrome[/i][/b]

Just like Golden Pussy Syndrome, but for a businessman. Now just like not all chicas have GPS, not all businessmen have GBS. Just some, typically right-wing businessmen. It's an attitude that they are superior and beyond reproach, no matter what they may say or do.

Most businesses depend on the labor of others. Many businesses also depend on skills that the owners do not posess. The company wouldn't exist without those workers and their skills, just like the workers wouldn't have jobs without the owners. It's a mutual relationship. Each group benefits the other. It's also sound economic policy to ensure workers share in prosperity, vs. letting owners simply maximize their take. You don't have a strong economy without a strong middle class.

Clearly Doppel, you're an elitist like Romney. Why don't you repeat your quote above to your employees.

[QUOTE=Esten; 422815]This seems like an appropriate time to introduce a term that has sometimes occured to me when reading this thread. A new term never coined before, introduced right here on AP:

[b][i]Golden Businessman Syndrome[/i][/b]

Just like Golden Pussy Syndrome, but for a businessman. Now just like not all chicas have GPS, not all businessmen have GBS. Just some, typically right-wing businessmen. It's an attitude that they are superior and beyond reproach, no matter what they may say or do.

Most businesses depend on the labor of others. Many businesses also depend on skills that the owners do not posess. The company wouldn't exist without those workers and their skills, just like the workers wouldn't have jobs without the owners. It's a mutual relationship. Each group benefits the other. It's also sound economic policy to ensure workers share in prosperity, vs. Letting owners simply maximize their take. You don't have a strong economy without a strong middle class.

Clearly Doppel, you're an elitist like Romney. Why don't you repeat your quote above to your employees.[/QUOTE]Anybody like Gary Johnson (Libertarian) for President 2012?

[url]www.garyjohnson2012.com[/url]

Bullet Points.

Balance Budget Now.

Out of Afghanistan Now.

Pro Pot Legalization.

Pro Same Sex Marriage.

Pro Business and Pro Civil Liberties.

Fred

[QUOTE=Silver Star; 422820]Anybody like Gary Johnson (Libertarian) for President 2012?

[url]www.garyjohnson2012.com[/url]

Bullet Points.

Balance Budget Now.

Out of Afghanistan Now.

Pro Pot Legalization.

Pro Same Sex Marriage.

Pro Business and Pro Civil Liberties.

Fred[/QUOTE]You guys got what you wanted!

Now live with it!

TL

[QUOTE=Esten; 422814]Checkmate for WT69! Plenty of Republican ideas in the Affordable Care Act.

Sorry Jax.[/QUOTE]Yea, like I'm going to accept Obama's propaganda website as evidence.

Here's the real evidence: Not one single non-Democratic congressman could be convinced or persuaded to vote for the ObamaCare bill.

Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson; 422822]Yea, like I'm going to accept Obama's propaganda website as evidence.

Here's the real evidence: Not one single non-Democratic congressman could be convinced or persuaded to vote for the ObamaCare bill.

Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Thanks[/quote]http://cdn.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id=%7BE8C60B03-8F6B-43E8-93C9-1DF15A79AE0D%7D&title=2009%20Romney%20Says%20Obama%20Plan%20Is%20Following%20RomenyCare%20Model
Romney in 2009 on RomneyCare and Obama Care.

The 2 plans are much the same (individual mandate) so Romney has basically Flip Flopped again for political gain.

More Romney flipflops at mittromneyflipflops.com

Gov Gary Johnson (Libertarian) was against Obama Care from the start, no flip flop. (Principled)

(need help on how to hotlink)

Fred

Something we don't hear about in mainstream media is what happened in Iceland. The people revolted. They kicked out the entire government and kicked out the banksters. It started because the "women" had enough and weren't going to take it anymore.

The women started the "Pots and Pan Brigade."

They got together and banged pots and pans with metal spoons, etc. And made a enough noise loud enough that everyone in the government and everywhere else could hear it. They apparently stood outside government buildings and did this. Politicians were left cowering in their offices. After they took down their entire government, they jailed politicians and government officials.

Essentially they took their country back. The women inspired other women, then they inspired men.

There is going to be a "worldwide pots and pan brigade" on Thursday May 31, 2012.

From a News Story:

THE LADIES STEPPED UP AND RECOVERED THEIR COUNTRY'S ECONOMY.

The government of Iceland has forgiven the mortgage debt for much of its population. This nation chose a very different way of stopping the crisis from the rest of European countries. It decided to hear the requests of the population and to put politicians and bankers on the bench of the accused three years after their financial excesses would sank one of the most prosperous economies in 2008.