Originally Posted by Shaaarrrp

Most people run on their record? What?

They usually do if their record is worth running on. In Mitt's case, the campaign has chosen to focus on other facets than what he's accomplished as a politician.

 

Originally Posted by 36crazyfists

This.

While I fundamentally disagree with Obama regarding the role of govt, Romney and the GOPer's perverted version of neo/social "conservatism" is truly terrifying.

This

 

Originally Posted by snaggs

Accept obamacare bears a striking resemblance to the healthcare plan Romney implemented in Mass.

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

The point is that most people run on their record. Romney's record is implementing Obamacare when he was governor. The GOP made hay with "he was for it before he was against it" in 2004. 2012 they have amnesia. Standard.

You two should probably do a little bit more research, especially you poop.

I wish it were a Gary Johnson/Ron Paul ticket where they could get 15% of the vote and be in the deabtes

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1637882.html

http://www.dailypaul.com/241454/romn...-are-identical

Ron Paul's take on the matter.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah...rent-obamacare

Ezra Klein, who is nominally the target of Holtz-Eakin's salvo, replies at length in his blog. (Among other things, Klein says Holtz-Eakin miscalculates the health care cost increase in Massachusetts.) But if you're a Republican, you don't care what Klein, a card-carrying member of the lamestream media, thinks. You care what conservatives think! Alas, as with Coulter, the right doesn't appear to be buying it, if this American Spectator blog post by W. James Antle III is any indication. The inescapable paradox remains that the Obama policy most loathed by Republicans was invented by the person most likely to be the Republican presidential nominee.
It's Stee-rike One for Coulter and now Stee-rike Two for Holtz-Eakin. Who wants to bat next?

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

...

Important date to remember is 2007 was Romney's last year as Gov. of Mass.

- The law was amended significantly in 2008 and twice in 2010 and major revisions related to health care industry price controls were introduced in the Massachusetts legislature in May 2012 that passed in August 2012.

- In 2008 and 2010 much more substantive changes were made to the law, one of the most important of which was to begin an open enrollment period for those receiving subsidized health insurance and anyone buying insurance – even if paying full price – as an individual. The major thrust of the proposed 2012 amendments is to introduce price controls.

- The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

- Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

That last bolded section is important in that 8 items Romney vetoed, were eventually overridden and added back on. Toss in the FACT that a lot of changes were made AFTER ROMNEY LEFT OFFICE, It's pretty easy to see RomneyCare is in fact NOT what Romney wanted or envisioned.

So to say RomneyCare "implemented" ObamaCare is false. It's more like the current version of Massachusetts health care law "implemented" ObamaCare.

Plus, the Republican's are actually right in that Romney was for it back then because it was closer to what he wanted than the current version and that's why he isn't for it now because of the changes.

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

i mean...i know the tru answer is it does not fn matter who the president it...

I think this is typically true, but when a president signs off on legislation, or makes executive orders that increase regulations, red tape and taxes for businesses, it's going to have an impact on the economy. A lot of companies aren't hiring because they're afraid of Obama's policies. For example, they don't like this healthcare bill and its implications. Certainly there are factors that the president has no control over like natural disasters, 9/11, the dot com boom and bust, etc... but there are other things the president does have some responsibility for.

http://financialservices.house.gov/n...umentID=307037

 

Originally Posted by mesaplayeraz

Important date to remember is 2007 was Romney's last year as Gov. of Mass.

- The law was amended significantly in 2008 and twice in 2010 and major revisions related to health care industry price controls were introduced in the Massachusetts legislature in May 2012 that passed in August 2012.

- In 2008 and 2010 much more substantive changes were made to the law, one of the most important of which was to begin an open enrollment period for those receiving subsidized health insurance and anyone buying insurance – even if paying full price – as an individual. The major thrust of the proposed 2012 amendments is to introduce price controls.

- The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

- Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

That last bolded section is important in that 8 items Romney vetoed, were eventually overridden and added back on. Toss in the FACT that a lot of changes were made AFTER ROMNEY LEFT OFFICE, It's pretty easy to see RomneyCare is in fact NOT what Romney wanted or envisioned.

So to say RomneyCare "implemented" ObamaCare is false. It's more like the current version of Massachusetts health care law "implemented" ObamaCare.

Plus, the Republican's are actually right in that Romney was for it back then because it was closer to what he wanted than the current version and that's why he isn't for it now because of the changes.

Infinite dots. You aren't real.

 

Originally Posted by snaggs

You do realize that by that yardstick Obama didn't implement Obama care. It bares only passing resemblance to the legislation he wanted.

Doubt he realizes the dubious nature of the argument presented. Plus, he copied and pasted from some source(probably Wikipedia) and didn't provide a link and copied more than a paragraph or two (in violation of p5s terms of service due to plagerism. Worthy of a warning IMO).

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

People say Romney is a smart man....well, the next 90 days will show whether he has any common sense or not.

Unfortunately I feel like most voters all ready know who they are voting for regardless of what takes place in the next 3 months.

 

Originally Posted by OneM24

I believe this is true. I don't think many people are going to look at the conventions and debates to decide who they will vote for, they will simply vote for the party they traditionally vote for. I have a hard time believing that someone who is a registered Republican will vote for anybody other than the Republican nominee, and the same goes for Democrats. This is all just a dog and pony show at this point. Unfortunately both choices suck, and I don't see it changing unless the way we run elections and the 2 party system changes.

There are people who have not decided yet, though, and who do not affiliate themselves with any particular party. I think those people probably are paying attention to the debates and conventions. Maybe I'm wrong. Not a fan of the two-party system, but you know how I feel about the current situation and why I've opted to vote for who I'm voting for.

 

Originally Posted by zeppelinzoso16

Was real good. Was a wait to be seated at 1pm on a Wednesday afternoon at a tiny airport surrounded by farms so that is a good indication. Will no doubt return. Milk shakes looked delicious too

Didn't read rest of the thread but you were at the Camarillo airport? I've never been there but dad grinds there weekly

Obv this is just conjecture, but I feel like "the base" is more important than the "undecided". I would imagine that the true undecideds are probably a small population in comparison to the more core supporters who would vote party line if they didn't feel so apathetic about the choices.