2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

I have some more facts to add to my last post...

According some bean-counters, the GOP's efforts to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act have, thus far, cost taxpayers $50 million. Also, they have taken up, combined, two full work weeks of Congress's time.

If I was a member of the board of directors for say, a bank, and had wasted that percentage of the budget and two full weeks on a project that I knew was only symbolic and had no chance of succeeding, I'm certain that the CEO would blow a major fuse and that I'd be looking for a new job.

[Roy Karrde]

I have some more facts to add to my last post...

According some bean-counters, the GOP's efforts to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act have, thus far, cost taxpayers $50 million. Also, they have taken up, combined, two full work weeks of Congress's time.

If I was a member of the board of directors for say, a bank, and had wasted that percentage of the budget and two full weeks on a project that I knew was only symbolic and had no chance of succeeding, I'm certain that the CEO would blow a major fuse and that I'd be looking for a new job.

And you get these facts from what non biased source?

And seeing how much it will A: Cost the tax payers by having it still in place, and B: The year the Democrats spent passing this monstrosity, the Republicans are still doing pretty good.

By the way if anyone has a problem with it being me vs Dark Sage, they can join in.

[Dark Sage]

And you get these facts from what non biased source?

CBS news.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...ime/?tag=stack

There you go.

[Roy Karrde]

CBS news.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...ime/?tag=stack

There you go.

And where does the $50 million come into play?

[Dark Sage]

Watch the video. The anchor says so at the end.

[Roy Karrde]

Watch the video. The anchor says so at the end.

Alright but that is a false figure, he says the House of Representatives costs us that much for two weeks, not just specifically floor time. The House of Representatives includes pay for Congressmen and their staff, hearings held on various issues, cost of maintenance, food, electricity, etc etc. It isn't boiled down to just how much it costs for the main chamber for the specific sessions they are working on Obamacare.

[Dark Sage]

You're making excuses Roy. I gave you reliable proof, and you can't just brush aside the CBS Evening News like it was some scandal rag.

You saw all the points they made in the story. The House is wasting time when there are far more vital issues they have to address in the limited amount of time that they have, like the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts. These things are going to hurt us more than than they claim the "tax" that the Affordable Health Care Act has ever will. But they were too busy pursuing a scheme to hurt Democrats that were up for re-election.

[Roy Karrde]

You're making excuses Roy. I gave you reliable proof, and you can't just brush aside the CBS Evening News like it was some scandal rag.

You saw all the points they made in the story. The House is wasting time when there are far more vital issues they have to address in the limited amount of time that they have, like the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts. These things are going to hurt us more than than they claim the "tax" that the Affordable Health Care Act has ever will. But they were too busy pursuing a scheme to hurt Democrats that were up for re-election.

I am not making excuses I am saying that it is a false number, unless they want to boil down the time to just the chamber time then it is a false number. I am not saying they are a scandal rag, I am giving you a nuanced perspective of it, take it or leave it.

By the way time on the Bush tax cuts? Democrats have already said loud and clear that they will not take anything but a full extension of it, yet Obama keeps pushing both the House and Senate to cut it for those making over $250,000 dollars despite heading back into a recession. Who's wasting time now?

[Dark Sage]

By the way time on the Bush tax cuts? Democrats have already said loud and clear that they will not take anything but a full extension of it, yet Obama keeps pushing both the House and Senate to cut it for those making over $250,000 dollars despite heading back into a recession. Who's wasting time now?

If the GOP would be willing to compromise - which they have proven, time and again, they won't - and let the rich pay their share so that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't pay a higher percentage than he does, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Roy Karrde]

If the GOP would be willing to compromise - which they have proven, time and again, they won't

"“My recommendation is we give the president what he asked for,” McConnell said.

The political maneuver was used to demonstrate there likely are not the votes among Democrats to pass the president’s plan. That was a point underscored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when he objected moments later to the Republicans request to hold the vote."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...amas-tax-plan/

"Worried about the fragile economy and their own upcoming elections, a growing number of Democrats are joining the rock-solid Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's plans to let some of the Bush administration's tax cuts expire.

Democratic leaders in Congress still back Obama, but the willingness to raise taxes is waning among the rank and file as the stagnant economy threatens the party's majority in the House and Senate.

"In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery," said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_703973.html

From 2010 to Now the Democrats have refused to back ending the Bush Tax Cuts, not just the Republicans.

- and let the rich pay their share so that Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't pay a higher percentage than he does, it wouldn't be a problem.

No problem because of course the economy is doing great right now? Right?

[Dark Sage]

No, Roy, the economy isn't doing great...

But everyone with an annual paycheck over $250,000 is doing pretty well. I should know... My mother is in that group, even though she would never dream of voting for Romney. (My dad is retired, but he used to be in it too.)

Hear that, Roy? My family would pay more taxes if the President got his way, and I still support him.

Heck, Obama himself is in that group. And in a weird twist of fate, he'd pay a higher percentage than Romney if his own plan were approved.

And if these folks like this helped out a little, maybe those who weren't so lucky would do better.

[Roy Karrde]

No, Roy, the economy isn't doing great...

But everyone with an annual paycheck over $250,000 is doing pretty well. I should know... My mother is in that group, even though she would never dream of voting for Romney. (My dad is retired, but he used to be in it too.)

Hear that, Roy? My family would pay more taxes if the President got his way, and I still support him.

Heck, Obama himself is in that group. And in a weird twist of fate, he'd pay a higher percentage than Romney if his own plan were approved.

And if these folks like this helped out a little, maybe those who weren't so lucky would do better.

And may I ask, if they pay the taxes where is it going to? Is it just going to redistribute the wealth? That doesn't help as we found out in the tax cuts in 2008, people just sit on the money. Is the Government going to doll it out? They have a lousy track record of that, just last week they showed they wasted 14 billion dollars in unemployment insurance

So please, tell me how taking more from the rich is going to help anyone out?

[Dark Sage]

How exactly are unemployment insurance scams the government's fault? That's a crime, and if someone does it, it's his fault.

Perhaps you didn't notice who's trying to fix this problem in the link you provided? Vice President Biden.

[Dark Sage]

By the way, Roy, let's say that CBS was accurate, and the House did indeed waste $50 million on this fruitless effort.

What does $50 million buy in America?

It buys 13.3 million gallons of milk. ($3.75)
It can pay the rent for 41.6 thousand average apartments for one month. ($1,200)
It could pay for 14.3 million tummy tucks or similar cosmetic surgeries. ($3,495)
It could buy 112 million, 32” TV’s-widescreen, VIZIO ($450)
(That's one for every single household in the country, btw)
It would pay the Dallas Cowboys 2012-$10 million salary cap penalty five times.
It would buy 3.9 million economy cars. ($13,000)
It would buy 10 thousand trips to Paris for two. ($5,000)
It would buy textbooks and supplies for 50 thousand college students for one year.
($1,000 per student at a public college)

Congress couldn’t figure out that after the 4,5,6 or 7th time the repeal wasn’t going to happen? Yet we don’t hesitate to belittle and degrade the single parent who needs milk for her children.

[Roy Karrde]

By the way, Roy, let's say that CBS was accurate, and the House did indeed waste $50 million on this fruitless effort.

Proof it relates exactly to the time used for this?

Congress couldn’t figure out that after the 4,5,6 or 7th time the repeal wasn’t going to happen? Yet we don’t hesitate to belittle and degrade the single parent who needs milk for her children.

A: Who is belittling Single Parents?

B: Its a election year, nothing is going to get past. That is politics.

[Dark Sage]

Proof it relates exactly to the time used for this?

The anchor was using simple logic, Roy. The time that the House used on the 33 attempts to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, when added together in one lump sum, total two complete work weeks for the House.

And on average, two complete work weeks for the House, when you factor in all their expenses, salaries, and requirements, cost the American taxpayer just shy of $50 million.

Granted, it cost the taxpayers that much for them to do anything that takes two weeks, but the thing here is, that two weeks was pratically spent doing nothing.

Nothing productive, anyway.

So now what are you going to tell me? That any of them actually believed the bill would pass the Senate? Or that even one of them believed the President would sign it?

[Roy Karrde]

The anchor was using simple logic, Roy. The time that the House used on the 33 attempts to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, when added together in one lump sum, total two complete work weeks for the House.

And on average, two complete work weeks for the House, when you factor in all their expenses, salaries, and requirements, cost the American taxpayer just shy of $50 million.

Granted, it cost the taxpayers that much for them to do anything that takes two weeks, but the thing here is, that two weeks was pratically spent doing nothing.

Nothing productive, anyway.

So now what are you going to tell me? That any of them actually believed the bill would pass the Senate? Or that even one of them believed the President would sign it?

"A CBS News tally found the Republican repeal effort has taken up at least 80 hours on the House floor, or two full work weeks, since 2010"

That is two full work weeks ON THE HOUSE Floor, not two full work weeks in the House total. Again for two full work weeks on the house total you will need to include security, meetings, food, electricity, staff, etc etc etc. The entirety of the House of Representatives does not just make up the House Floor.

[Dark Sage]

Whatever, Roy...

I still say you're making excuses...

The House spent 80 hours doing nothing, and that's the bottom line.

You want the last word, make it. I'll prove to the Missing Link that I'm not so full of pride that I have to have it all the time.

[Bear]

itt: 44 pages of hard evidence supporting my choice to never, ever engage in political discussions.

You know what would be great? If the two of you actually spent a week researching your OPPONENT'S point of view, and actually making an effort to see where they come from. All I see is petty bickering and a general inability to be tolerant of opposing points of view.

[Dark Sage]

itt: 44 pages of hard evidence supporting my choice to never, ever engage in political discussions.

You know what would be great? If the two of you actually spent a week researching your OPPONENT'S point of view, and actually making an effort to see where they come from. All I see is petty bickering and a general inability to be tolerant of opposing points of view.

I've actually taken many political science classes in college, Bear. It may not be my major, but I know how the GOP works.

[Roy Karrde]

I just do it for fun xD

[ChobiChibi]

It would be more fun to poke your eye out with a fork than to engage in this topic.

Politics and religion. Two debates just not worth taking the time over XP

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

this thread reminds of politics!

[Perfect Chaos]

I always tell people that I hate politics and I can never bother to figure out what exactly every party stands for. Then they just tell me that I'm too ignorant or too stupid to understand how the system(s) work.

Well if ignorance is bliss, then I'm pretty damn happy to be a complete moron when it comes to politics.

My personal opinion is that all parties have two agendas...one they claim to stand upon in order to gain the peoples' support...and a second agenda containing all the ideas they actually want to get done while they're in power to furthur their own ends. Parties don't give a damn what the people want once they reach that pinnacle point of power because they don't need anything else from anyone at that point

Like all everyone else said, all I see are 44 pages of convuluted bullcrap that just helped to increase Roy and DS's post count.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Just know in advance I probably won't really care too much even if you did.

[Blademaster]

Politics and religion. Two debates just not worth taking the time over XP

We could debate both.

At the same time.

[Jeff]

God is running as a third party candidate. Discuss.

[Roy Karrde]

Anti War, Anti Abortion, Anti Death Penalty, Anti Gay Marriage. His positions turn off both the right and the left! He doesn't have a chance!

[Dark Sage]

Pro Peace.

Pro Tolerance.

Anti Hatred.

I would vote Him.

[Roy Karrde]

But the dude has a track record of killing the first born!

[Dark Sage]

You know, Roy, I do have a Bible, and I read it a lot...

If you read the New Testament from front to back, you'd see that Jesus never once condemns homosexuals, or those who performs abortions... He doesn't condemn anyone, for that matter.

A group of hypocrites came to him with a woman who was to be stoned for adultery, and thought to tempt him into passing judgment so that they could accuse him. But he instead wrote on the ground, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He said that because HE was the only one without sin that was present, and by refusing to do so, he shamed the crowd and averted the execution.

He showed no contempt for anyone... Not to Judas, and not to Pontius Pilate. He even prayed for the salvation of the two thieves who were crucified along with him, two people he didn't even know.

His word was one of peace and tolerance, Roy... Not what we hear from religious groups today who call homosexuality evil, who say that God hates gays, or hate groups pretending to be churches who protest at the funerals of soldiers who died for our country. Jesus would never have told ANYONE that he was evil. He would have used a gentle hand to convince a sinner to repent, and then offer to forgive.

Jesus represents peace, tolerance, and love. Something we need a lot of.

And by the way... Don't take the stuff you read about in the Old Testament at face-value... That's where it says "Spare the rod, spoil the child", where it says that you should be stoned if you work on Sunday, and where it says that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery.

[Roy Karrde]

Relax Dark Sage it is a joke, besides you have no idea what religious God we are talking about, I very well could be Jewish and take the stuff in the Old Testament as face value.

Besides I figured you would be back here engaging in the Birtherism like attacks that Team Obama has sunk too, so I have to say I do give you credit for not doing that man.

[Bear]

You know, Roy, I do have a Bible, and I read it a lot...

If you read the New Testament from front to back, you'd see that Jesus never once condemns homosexuals, or those who performs abortions... He doesn't condemn anyone, for that matter.

A group of hypocrites came to him with a woman who was to be stoned for adultery, and thought to tempt him into passing judgment so that they could accuse him. But he instead wrote on the ground, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He said that because HE was the only one without sin that was present, and by refusing to do so, he shamed the crowd and averted the execution.

He showed no contempt for anyone... Not to Judas, and not to Pontius Pilate. He even prayed for the salvation of the two thieves who were crucified along with him, two people he didn't even know.

His word was one of peace and tolerance, Roy... Not what we hear from religious groups today who call homosexuality evil, who say that God hates gays, or hate groups pretending to be churches who protest at the funerals of soldiers who died for our country. Jesus would never have told ANYONE that he was evil. He would have used a gentle hand to convince a sinner to repent, and then offer to forgive.

Jesus represents peace, tolerance, and love. Something we need a lot of.

And by the way... Don't take the stuff you read about in the Old Testament at face-value... That's where it says "Spare the rod, spoil the child", where it says that you should be stoned if you work on Sunday, and where it says that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery.

[Dark Sage]

Besides I figured you would be back here engaging in the Birtherism like attacks that Team Obama has sunk too, so I have to say I do give you credit for not doing that man.

I don't sink to the level of lunatics, Roy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't sink to the level of lunatics, Roy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Glad to know that you think those running Obama's campaign are lunatics.

[Dark Sage]

To be perfectly honest, this was the first I've heard of any "Birther-style attacks" on Romney. I haven't been watching the news all day.

I know the unfounded rumors about his father being polygamous and all that, but I haven't heard much new stuff.

Edit: Btw, Roy, if Romney truly wanted to prove he was the bigger man, this is what he would do:

He would denounce the opinions of Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio, and then condemn the comments made by Ted Nugent.

If he did that, I would gain a great deal more respect for him than I have now.

[Roy Karrde]

To be perfectly honest, this was the first I've heard of any "Birther-style attacks" on Romney. I haven't been watching the news all day.

I know the unfounded rumors about his father being polygamous and all that, but I haven't heard much new stuff.

Alright it started with a Boston Globe Report which got its sources from Mother Jones and Talking Points Memo.

The allegation is this, because Romney's name appears on FEC returns for Bain Capital in 2002, then he has misled the public about leaving in Feb 1999 to go work on the Olympics.

The story gained legs when the infinite stupidity of Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter basically said that Romney has either misled the public, or engaged in a felony. This line of stupidity was also parroted by Obama's Campaign Press Secretary.

Now here is why it is wrong: As explained by The Washington Post, FactCheck, and two Obama Supporters at Bain. Romney left Bain Capital so fast in 1999 to head the Olympics that they did not have time to make appropriate changes, since Bain Capital is such a big company, with so much to do, his name remained on FEC filings for years to come even though he wasn't with the company.

Edit: Btw, Roy, if Romney truly wanted to prove he was the bigger man, this is what he would do:

He would denounce the opinions of Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio, and then condemn the comments made by Ted Nugent.

If he did that, I would gain a great deal more respect for him than I have now.

If some one in Romney's campaign came out and said something stupid like what is happening with Obama's right now, I would say he needs to do that as well as apologize to Obama for the stupidity of his campaign. But since Arpaio, Trump, and Nugent do not actually work for Romney, going out and denouncing them right now would be a waste of breath and time as it takes coverage of his message and shifts it completely in a different direction.

I mean I would love to see Romney do it, but in the realm of Presidential Campaign Politics you do not have the time to lose a few news cycles that could be used for your message. However when it is a member of your own campaign team, it is your duty to denounce them, fire them, and apologize to the other guy, that is just leadership as you are responsible for those beneath you. Obama has yet to do that.

[Leon-IH]

Anti War, Anti Abortion, Anti Death Penalty, Anti Gay Marriage. His positions turn off both the right and the left! He doesn't have a chance!

That depends on if it's old Testament god or new Testament god.

Old Testament god seemed pretty pro-war, pro-death penalty to me.

[kurai]

The allegation is this, because Romney's name appears on FEC returns for Bain Capital in 2002, then he has misled the public about leaving in Feb 1999 to go work on the Olympics.

Now here is why it is wrong: As explained by The Washington Post, FactCheck, and two Obama Supporters at Bain. Romney left Bain Capital so fast in 1999 to head the Olympics that they did not have time to make appropriate changes, since Bain Capital is such a big company, with so much to do, his name remained on FEC filings for years to come even though he wasn't with the company.

the issue is with SEC filings, not the FEC

certainly it is not likely that romney is a felon, and there is no real evidence to this effect, but as a result, he could not be as entirely separate from bain beyond 1999 as he presently claims. it is quite a bad messaging situation for romney, which is why his campaign is bringing up VP rumors to refocus.

but consider the explanation he would have to make if the line of inquiry were continued:

1) yes, my name was on SEC filings as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President", but this was just an erroneous form submission, these deals were actually managed and signed by various managing directors since I had retired in 1999.

[supposedly this is 'illegal' in the post-Enron world, but was not at the time]

2) but, I also personally signed several SEC filings as a consequence of my investment interest in other deals involving subsidiary holdings companies which are called Bain but are not actually Bain Capital

3) however, because I was acting in this capacity as sole owner of such holdings, I also attended various board meetings in Massachusetts and thus drew a salary from the subsidiary units based in Massachusetts (and also from Bain itself)

4) this simultaneous salary and unintentional misfiling of my role was coincidental rather than nefarious (ie. I was not being paid to be CEO)

[we can give him the benefit of the doubt since he was a busy guy at the time, but many might not]

5) but all of this reinforced my claim of residency for my gubernatorial run

6) however, it now allows me to distance myself from the actual actions undertaken by Bain post-1999.

we have thus presumed that romney is not a felon, but as a consequence, it is fairly apparent that he was not totally separate from bain activities after his retirement (and so, the sixth claim which he is presently undertaking is somewhat dubious). he was doing work at bain and for bain subsidiaries after this point, which allowed him to claim an ongoing connection to Massachusetts.

given that romney's strengths are focused on his tenure as a successful businessman, the appearance of weird shell games and confusing claims to corporate responsibility are probably not helpful.

[Dark Sage]

But since Arpaio, Trump, and Nugent do not actually work for Romney, going out and denouncing them right now would be a waste of breath and time as it takes coverage of his message and shifts it completely in a different direction.

I mean I would love to see Romney do it, but in the realm of Presidential Campaign Politics you do not have the time to lose a few news cycles that could be used for your message. However when it is a member of your own campaign team, it is your duty to denounce them, fire them, and apologize to the other guy, that is just leadership as you are responsible for those beneath you. Obama has yet to do that.

I still think that if he did it, it would prove that he was the bigger man. And it would take all of ten minutes of his time.

Know why I think he won't do it? Because like all Republicans, he's scared to. Members of the GOP have lost votes and have even lost elections by standing up to the Birthers. Now they're scared of losing votes to these bigots. And that's just pitiful.

Edit: By the way, Roy, I looked up this story. And Romney's response to it is interesting. He calls the accusations "disgusting" and calls them "dirty politics", but when he was asked straight out if the President's campaign team were liars, this was his response:

"There's no question but that his campaign is putting out information which is false and deceptive and dishonest. And they know it. And they ought to stop."

It seems to me he kind of avoided giving a straight answer to that question which could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Of course, I'm not blaming him... That's what politicians do, right? I'm not saying that the accusations are true (I know too little about it to judge) but if he thinks that these are lies, he should say they are.

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: By the way, Roy, I looked up this story. And Romney's response to it is interesting. He calls the accusations "disgusting" and calls them "dirty politics", but when he was asked straight out if the President's campaign team were liars, this was his response:

It seems to me he kind of avoided giving a straight answer to that question which could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Of course, I'm not blaming him... That's what politicians do, right? I'm not saying that the accusations are true (I know too little about it to judge) but if he thinks that these are lies, he should say they are.

Simple: Because he does not want to invoke the "You Lie" memory of Joe Wilson, by calling the President a liar. Right now the Obama Campaign looks like evil little bastards, and Romney looks like the victim, he needs to keep looking that way on this subject and to do that he doesn't need to be calling the President or his campaign liars.

Edit: Dude even CNN is calling Obama's Campaign as "Swiftboating" Romney.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...boating-romney