Romney Picks VP

[Socrtease]

Medicare 'as we know it' is a severely underfunded liability. The status quo is not acceptable.

I agree, I just don't know how he sells it to the elderly. Granted they would not suffer under the voucher system, but what he would be asking is for old people to vote to give their children and grandchildren less than they had. The question you would ask the older voters, if you were Obama, is "Will your children and grandchildren be better off in 4 years, 8 years 12 years, than you are now?" to paraphrase Ronald Reagan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Obama and Ryan both include the same cost savings. The only difference is how they hope to achieve those cost savings. Ryan's shitty voucher program relies on competition and the invisible hand of the market while Obama relies on changing how and what Medicare pays for care.

It looks like this link is going to get a lot of mileage today:

The voucher program is shitty because it creates competition??? Yeah, because we don't want competition, we want a panel of government idiots deciding what to pay for. Yeah, that will work out much better than competition.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree, I just don't know how he sells it to the elderly. Granted they would not suffer under the voucher system, but what he would be asking is for old people to vote to give their children and grandchildren less than they had. The question you would ask the older voters, if you were Obama, is "Will your children and grandchildren be better off in 4 years, 8 years 12 years, than you are now?" to paraphrase Ronald Reagan.

It is the boomer generation that has been largely responsible for running up our nations debt and for making promises that they cannot deliver on. Also, all they have to do is point out the fact that under the status quo, not only will future generations get less, they will also still be paying for the boomers extravagance.

 

[Bonestorm]

The voucher program is shitty because it creates competition??? Yeah, because we don't want competition, we want a panel of government idiots deciding what to pay for. Yeah, that will work out much better than competition.

No, the voucher program is shitty because it destroys the element Medicare that enables Medicare to hold down costs -- the sheer volume of enrollees and the volume of healthcare they consume. Traditional Medicare will not be able to exist without that component.

Also, too, whether the government or private insurance provides insurance, someone is going to decide what that insurance covers and what it won't cover so I dont' really see your point there.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, the voucher program is shitty because it destroys the element Medicare that enables Medicare to hold down costs -- the sheer volume of enrollees and the volume of healthcare they consume. Traditional Medicare will not be able to exist without that component.

Also, too, whether the government or private insurance provides insurance, someone is going to decide what that insurance covers and what it won't cover so I dont' really see your point there.[/QUOTE]

The point is that the people can choose the coverages they want/need, rather than having some government panel decide for them.

A voucher program does not destroy Medicare's ability to control costs. That is simply nonsense. It will force medicare to become competitive. That will help control costs.

 

[ekg]

is this the rational debate zappa is talking about?

LOL

nah, you passed over that to get to those play-time with bonzo posts..

 

[apple0154]

Here's the deal Apple, what you actually know and understand of our national defense, would fit on a postage stamp. It's like listening to an 8-year-old explain foreign policy, you are a JOKE. We are part of an international alliance known as NATO. As such, we have certain obligations and commitments to other members of NATO, as well as our other allies. Now we can go back on our word, we can abandon our commitments, but that will come with a consequence. I realize 'consequence' is a hard word for liberals to comprehend, but it means there will be a price to pay for our action.

Oh, I know, Dix. You’re a firm believer in NATO and the United Nations and all the other organizations of which the US is a member. When a foreign country says “jump” you believe the POTUS should ask, “How high?” You’re truly a selfless individual.

As I have pointed out NUMEROUS times, our entire military budget... the WHOLE THING... is costing us less money than Obama has OVERSPENT in one fiscal quarter of his presidency. Not less than Obama has spent... hear that correctly.... less than Obama has spent OVER the amount he had available to spend! We could completely dismantle our military, and the money saved would not cover a fiscal quarter of DEBT rung up by this administration. Even a brain-dead retard can figure out, cutting the military budget isn't going to help that situation. Completely dismantling the military entirely, wouldn't pay for what Obama is overspending.

It doesn’t matter how much or little can be saved. The point is ANY amount could go for social programs. The US outspends everyone on the military.

Now of course, I realize, as liberals you all want to see the US military industrial complex destroyed, and you will completely ignore myself and others on the right who have said that we can find sensible and reasonable cuts to be made in the military budget, in favor of some liberal wet-dream of sweeping draconian gutting of our military, without any regard for the consequences of your action. But let me assure you, the last thing in the world an unemployed American wants to hear, is that you are closing the military base in their town, which provides the economic prosperity and jobs for the entire community. The size of our military is not their biggest concern, regardless of their political affiliations. But you only really care about people when it's convenient politically, we all know that already.

Sure, Dix. If paying healthy, young US citizens to build roads and schools in foreign countries is good fiscal policy allow me to offer help. Maybe one or two could come give me a hand to enlarge my fish pond later this fall. I also need a new roof. And the street could do with a little work. If paying US citizens to do work in other countries benefits the US then I’ve got a plan to save thousands! And I mean thousands!

Companies facing financial problems should start doing that. For example, Microsoft could pay employees to work at Apple. Wal-Mart could pay employees to work at Sears. We’ll call it the Dixie Plan.

I think you should immediately contact Ryan. Increase the military, get the troops to work in foreign countries and save a fortune. We won’t have to worry about jobs here if they’re all working in foreign countries.

Your logic is truly astounding. Romney should have picked you for VP.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, I know, Dix. You’re a firm believer in NATO and the United Nations and all the other organizations of which the US is a member. When a foreign country says “jump” you believe the POTUS should ask, “How high?” You’re truly a selfless individual.

I never mentioned the UN. I think the UN has always been an anti-American organization, I think that was it's original intent, to keep a boot on the neck of the mighty US. I don't believe we should cater to other countries, I didn't say that either. We do have alliances, we do have friendly allies, and we have commitments with them. You are either mature enough to understand that, or you're an idiot.

It doesn’t matter how much or little can be saved. The point is ANY amount could go for social programs. The US outspends everyone on the military.

No, it couldn't go for more social programs, are you not hearing what was said? Cutting the entire defense budget, that means every soldier goes home, every base is closed, every jet and tank is permanently parked... that saves us around $700 billion total. The first quarter of 2012 (Jan-Mar), Obama spent $700 billion more than the country will take in, so we will have covered that quarter of Obama debt, and that's it. You've not funded anything new, you can't spend money you've already spent, and now you have ZERO military in return for balancing the books for one fiscal quarter. This is NOT a plan.

Sure, Dix. If paying healthy, young US citizens to build roads and schools in foreign countries is good fiscal policy allow me to offer help. Maybe one or two could come give me a hand to enlarge my fish pond later this fall. I also need a new roof. And the street could do with a little work. If paying US citizens to do work in other countries benefits the US then blah blah blah...

All I said was, the average American who is sitting there with no job and few prospects, doesn't want to hear that you plan to close the military base where they live. You may believe this is a winning idea, but you'll find out differently the first time you announce base closings. Again, for the retarded, I stated very clearly and concisely, that we can find ways to make reasonable cuts in the military budget. Did you just fail to comprehend that? If so, hit your rewind button, and read again... I BELIEVE THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN CUT IN THE MILITARY BUDGET! Got it? If not, read it again a few times until it sinks in, because I am getting really tired of having to repeat myself.

 

[apple0154]

I never mentioned the UN. I think the UN has always been an anti-American organization, I think that was it's original intent, to keep a boot on the neck of the mighty US. I don't believe we should cater to other countries, I didn't say that either. We do have alliances, we do have friendly allies, and we have commitments with them. You are either mature enough to understand that, or you're an idiot.

So when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Syria who is/are the alliances we're protecting? And if there are alliances the US is protecting maybe it's time for those alliances to contribute to the pot. Or do you suggest the US protect alliances while US citizens are living on food stamps and losing their homes and not being able to afford proper medical care because, well, the government doesn't have any money. Is the US government's priority to protect alliances while allowing US citizens to suffer? Is that in the Constitution?

No, it couldn't go for more social programs, are you not hearing what was said? Cutting the entire defense budget, that means every soldier goes home, every base is closed, every jet and tank is permanently parked... that saves us around $700 billion total. The first quarter of 2012 (Jan-Mar), Obama spent $700 billion more than the country will take in, so we will have covered that quarter of Obama debt, and that's it. You've not funded anything new, you can't spend money you've already spent, and now you have ZERO military in return for balancing the books for one fiscal quarter. This is NOT a plan.

All I said was, the average American who is sitting there with no job and few prospects, doesn't want to hear that you plan to close the military base where they live. You may believe this is a winning idea, but you'll find out differently the first time you announce base closings. Again, for the retarded, I stated very clearly and concisely, that we can find ways to make reasonable cuts in the military budget. Did you just fail to comprehend that? If so, hit your rewind button, and read again... I BELIEVE THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN CUT IN THE MILITARY BUDGET! Got it? If not, read it again a few times until it sinks in, because I am getting really tired of having to repeat myself.

If cutting the entire military wouldn't help then why cut anything? You make absolutely no sense. You're saying small cuts will help but large cuts won't help.

Maybe you should let that sink in a bit.

 

[apple0154]

Also, too, whether the government or private insurance provides insurance, someone is going to decide what that insurance covers and what it won't cover so I dont' really see your point there.

The point is that the people can choose the coverages they want/need, rather than having some government panel decide for them.

A voucher program does not destroy Medicare's ability to control costs. That is simply nonsense. It will force medicare to become competitive. That will help control costs.

The point is some people can't afford to choose. Any government medical policy will be better than any private policy for the simple reason the policy has to cover everybody. While sickle cell anemia is more prevalent among blacks and Hispanics a government plan would have to include that illness meaning caucasians would be covered as well. How many caucasians would normally buy insurance covering that illness? How does one decide which illnesses to insure against? Does anyone know what illness they may contract?

It's like another poster mentioned concerning folks who don't understand government medical. Private, individual policies seem the norm because that's what people are used to but it's completely illogical. It's akin to suggesting a home insurance policy to someone not knowing where their home is located. Should a home owner buy flood insurance? I suppose that would depend if the home was in Death Valley or built on the Mississippi Delta. Does the average individual know the illnesses to which they're predisposed or the accidents they may have or the special assistance they may need? A particular illness may be considered rare in South Dakota but not so rare in California. How would one possibly know? How could they make an informed decision when purchasing insurance?

I wish those who oppose government medical would take a good look at the BIG picture.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Syria who is/are the alliances we're protecting? And if there are alliances the US is protecting maybe it's time for those alliances to contribute to the pot. Or do you suggest the US protect alliances while US citizens are living on food stamps and losing their homes and not being able to afford proper medical care because, well, the government doesn't have any money. Is the US government's priority to protect alliances while allowing US citizens to suffer? Is that in the Constitution?

I don't know what agreements we've made with our allies, or the details of them, I was just pointing out they exist. You seem to think that we can just up and decide we're not going to have bases in Europe anymore, and there are very real commitments made with NATO on this, you can't just flick a bird to NATO and leave... things don't work like that in the real world. Maybe it's that way in your wonderland reality, but here in our world, we have allies and a commitment to NATO, and that has to be taken into consideration. Does that mean we can't close ANY base? No, it means just what it means, we do have obligations and commitments with other people.

What is in our constitution is the Federal government's purpose to defend the people. Above and beyond anything else, that is what our Federal government is primarily there to do. What's NOT in there, is Federal government's obligation to play favorites according to class. In fact, that is one of the things we abandoned Europe for when we created this place.

If cutting the entire military wouldn't help then why cut anything? You make absolutely no sense. You're saying small cuts will help but large cuts won't help.

Maybe you should let that sink in a bit.

I'm saying large cuts to the military won't solve the problem of Obama spending a trillion more than we take in each year. I think Ryan's budget called for 15% cuts in military budgets, something like $400 billion over 10 years. That's a pretty hefty chunk to cut, if you ask me... especially for people you want to claim are refusing to budge on cuts to military spending.

This is about mindlessly cutting vs. sensibly cutting, Apple. That is what you need to let sink in a bit.

Whenever you mindlessly say, we need to eliminate ALL foreign bases... you don't account for the many entanglements we have with NATO alliances, etc., which prohibit us from doing such a thing at this time. We can't! Even if the argument can be made that it would best for us to do so, we still can't! Not without repercussions around the world, in ways you haven't even anticipated. We have to approach this in a SENSIBLE way, and see what can and can't be cut, not just mindlessly ranting like a goddamn idiot.

If you make deep cuts to military funding by closing bases (i.e.; We don't need all these stinking bases everywhere!) you create another problem. The military personnel are all dispatched to other places, they go to San Diego or Houston, to another base someplace... but the people who suffer are the ones left behind, who aren't in the military. Without all those military families there, the Walmart closes down... the McDonald's closes... Best Buys.... Target... and the restaurants close down... no business. Bookstores and coffee shops close... on and on. People are left decimated in the wake of you shutting down their primary source of economic livelihood, the military base. You have nothing to fill that void left, the people are not capable of sustaining an economy with nothing to replace the military base, no one has jobs or hope. We can't have a mass relocation program for all of these people who's lives you've destroyed, so what do we do? Until you have an answer, you need to think about that. Of course, you live in some delusional fantasy whereby the government comes in and opens up all kinds of new businesses for people to have jobs... we've had this whole conversation before. You are a delusional idiot.

 

[apple0154]

I don't know what agreements we've made with our allies, or the details of them, I was just pointing out they exist. You seem to think that we can just up and decide we're not going to have bases in Europe anymore, and there are very real commitments made with NATO on this, you can't just flick a bird to NATO and leave... things don't work like that in the real world. Maybe it's that way in your wonderland reality, but here in our world, we have allies and a commitment to NATO, and that has to be taken into consideration. Does that mean we can't close ANY base? No, it means just what it means, we do have obligations and commitments with other people.

I have never suggested closing ALL the bases. The point is going into different countries like Afghanistan and Iraq was not due to alliances. Look at Syria. There was no mass extermination of citizens there. Some people decided to revolt for freedom. Good for them. Let them revolt and stay the hell out of it. Egypt. The Arab Spring. Stay the hell away. Simple. Look after the people here. Have you ever heard charity begins at home. Instead of "spreading democracy" how about spreading more food and clothing and shelter and medical care for the average US citizen? Want to help others? Great! The people of the Sudan require more help than the Syrians and Egyptians. The Syrians and Egyptians had homes and jobs but decided to fight their government because they were not "free". Maybe help the Sudanese get some food and shelter first.

Whenever you mindlessly say, we need to eliminate ALL foreign bases... you don't account for the many entanglements we have with NATO alliances, etc., which prohibit us from doing such a thing at this time. We can't! Even if the argument can be made that it would best for us to do so, we still can't! Not without repercussions around the world, in ways you haven't even anticipated. We have to approach this in a SENSIBLE way, and see what can and can't be cut, not just mindlessly ranting like a goddamn idiot.

I never said to cut ALL bases.

If you make deep cuts to military funding by closing bases (i.e.; We don't need all these stinking bases everywhere!) you create another problem. The military personnel are all dispatched to other places, they go to San Diego or Houston, to another base someplace... but the people who suffer are the ones left behind, who aren't in the military. Without all those military families there, the Walmart closes down... the McDonald's closes... Best Buys.... Target... and the restaurants close down... no business. Bookstores and coffee shops close... on and on. People are left decimated in the wake of you shutting down their primary source of economic livelihood, the military base. You have nothing to fill that void left, the people are not capable of sustaining an economy with nothing to replace the military base, no one has jobs or hope. We can't have a mass relocation program for all of these people who's lives you've destroyed, so what do we do? Until you have an answer, you need to think about that. Of course, you live in some delusional fantasy whereby the government comes in and opens up all kinds of new businesses for people to have jobs... we've had this whole conversation before. You are a delusional idiot.

Your logic is insane. Your implying military bases are supporting the economies of towns so keep paying the military personnel so they can give that money to the townspeople. Why not just give the townspeople the money and skip the "middle man"?

Military jobs. You are the first person to say the government shouldn't be providing jobs. What benefit is the average US citizen getting for their tax dollars? Instead of the government paying people to be in the military the government can pay people to work in the community. If the government is going to supply jobs let's do jobs that benefit everyone. If military personnel are going to build schools in Afghanistan and Iraq why not build a new school here? New roads. Take a few hundred military folks and drop them off in a town that is having a financial crisis and let them repair and build roads and schools and hospitals and have the Federal Government pay for it. The government is already paying for that in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why not here? Cleaning and repair crews going from town to town painting the homes of people who can't afford to do it. There are hundreds of jobs to be done. Why are US citizens paying taxes for people to build schools and hospitals on the other side of the world? It's no wonder nobody likes paying taxes. They may as well just put their money in an envelope and mail it overseas.

You're not a delusional idiot. You're just an idiot. You'll vote for someone who will not only continue such insanity but increase it! Strengthen the military. You'll support politicians who will take more of people's tax dollars while watching your neighbor line up at a food bank. That, Dix, is insanity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have never suggested closing ALL the bases. The point is going into different countries like Afghanistan and Iraq was not due to alliances. Look at Syria. There was no mass extermination of citizens there. Some people decided to revolt for freedom. Good for them. Let them revolt and stay the hell out of it. Egypt. The Arab Spring. Stay the hell away. Simple. Look after the people here. Have you ever heard charity begins at home. Instead of "spreading democracy" how about spreading more food and clothing and shelter and medical care for the average US citizen? Want to help others? Great! The people of the Sudan require more help than the Syrians and Egyptians. The Syrians and Egyptians had homes and jobs but decided to fight their government because they were not "free". Maybe help the Sudanese get some food and shelter first.

I never said to cut ALL bases.

We're talking about cuts in military spending, not war policies. Whenever you ask a lib what we should cut in military spending, it's usually the first thing out of their mouths... what about all the foreign bases? You even have Superfreak and others agreeing, we need to close foreign bases. Perhaps there are some foreign bases we can close, but most are there because of alliances and agreements with NATO, and we can't (and won't) go back on our word to our allies. That's not going to happen.

As for where and when we use the military, that has little to do with the military budget.

Your logic is insane. Your implying military bases are supporting the economies of towns so keep paying the military personnel so they can give that money to the townspeople. Why not just give the townspeople the money and skip the "middle man"?

Why don't everyone just quit their jobs and the government can send them a check?

Military jobs. You are the first person to say the government shouldn't be providing jobs. What benefit is the average US citizen getting for their tax dollars? Instead of the government paying people to be in the military the government can pay people to work in the community. If the government is going to supply jobs let's do jobs that benefit everyone. If military personnel are going to build schools in Afghanistan and Iraq why not build a new school here? New roads. Take a few hundred military folks and drop them off in a town that is having a financial crisis and let them repair and build roads and schools and hospitals and have the Federal Government pay for it. The government is already paying for that in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why not here? Cleaning and repair crews going from town to town painting the homes of people who can't afford to do it. There are hundreds of jobs to be done. Why are US citizens paying taxes for people to build schools and hospitals on the other side of the world? It's no wonder nobody likes paying taxes. They may as well just put their money in an envelope and mail it overseas.

Well here's what Obama found out, we are actually in pretty good shape on infrastructure, and don't have a need for federal government to build roads and bridges or repair schools. Contrary to what you believe, we don't live in a third-world dilapidated country.

People didn't join the military to go around painting houses and doing handyman work. We're not going to turn the military into Habitat for Humanity... that isn't going to happen in the reality the rest of us live in, apple.

You're not a delusional idiot. You're just an idiot. You'll vote for someone who will not only continue such insanity but increase it! Strengthen the military. You'll support politicians who will take more of people's tax dollars while watching your neighbor line up at a food bank. That, Dix, is insanity.

Well you definitely ARE a delusional idiot, but I can't figure out if you are more delusional than idiot, or the other way around.

Yes, $400 billion in cuts proposed by Paul Ryan is "increasing military spending" to a delusional idiot... I can't help that!

 

[apple0154]

We're talking about cuts in military spending, not war policies. Whenever you ask a lib what we should cut in military spending, it's usually the first thing out of their mouths... what about all the foreign bases? You even have Superfreak and others agreeing, we need to close foreign bases. Perhaps there are some foreign bases we can close, but most are there because of alliances and agreements with NATO, and we can't (and won't) go back on our word to our allies. That's not going to happen.

With today's transportation military personnel can be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. They don't have to live there. One base can serve a number of countries.

As for where and when we use the military, that has little to do with the military budget.

Huh? It has everything to do with it. If US citizens benefit directly it's a much better use of taxes.

Why don't everyone just quit their jobs and the government can send them a check?

Or join the military, supply labor to foreign contries and the US government can send them a check.

Well here's what Obama found out, we are actually in pretty good shape on infrastructure, and don't have a need for federal government to build roads and bridges or repair schools. Contrary to what you believe, we don't live in a third-world dilapidated country.

If there's no jobs required doing then I guess some people don't have to work.

People didn't join the military to go around painting houses and doing handyman work. We're not going to turn the military into Habitat for Humanity... that isn't going to happen in the reality the rest of us live in, apple.

Well, either find them jobs to do or cut the numbers. I'm flexible.

Well you definitely ARE a delusional idiot, but I can't figure out if you are more delusional than idiot, or the other way around.

Yes, $400 billion in cuts proposed by Paul Ryan is "increasing military spending" to a delusional idiot... I can't help that!

Awww, Dix. Who's fooling whom? Do you think Romney and Ryan are so different than the rest of the Repub party? The war-mongering, conquer the world, invade as many countries as possible while claiming new weapons are necessary philosophical platform upon which the Repub party is standing is alive and well in the back room. One skirmish, one Police action, one incident...one "whatever" is all it will take to scrap any military cut and crank up the budget. Those military sub-contractors must be feeling the pinch now that Obama is scaling back wars. If weapons aren't being used and machinery is not being destroyed how are they supposed to make a buck? McCain, while out of the spotlight, is no doubt working behind the scenes. And we know Cheney. He'd spend his last dime on a bullet even if it was to shoot a friend.

Those folks are there like the ghosts of Christmas past and they'll haunt both Romney and Ryan if they get the White House. War is their business.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

With today's transportation military personnel can be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. They don't have to live there. One base can serve a number of countries.

That simply isn't true, but furthermore, doesn't answer the question about what we are to do regarding our NATO obligations?
Should we tell our NATO allies to kiss our ass and fuck off, we'll do what we want to do? That may present a problem in the future, should we ever have a need for our NATO allies. In foreign policy, it's generally not a good idea to flip off your friends.

Huh? It has everything to do with it. If US citizens benefit directly it's a much better use of taxes.

The purpose of the military is not to conform to what an idiot Canadian thinks is the best use of their service to the US. Sorry.

Or join the military, supply labor to foreign contries and the US government can send them a check.

Why not? In your dream world, money just materializes when needed, doesn't it?

If there's no jobs required doing then I guess some people don't have to work.

None of us need to work in your fantasy land! We all get taken care of by government, with their big endless pile of cash!

Well, either find them jobs to do or cut the numbers. I'm flexible.

How about we keep the system as it is, and tell you to go fuck yourself? I'm flexible.

Awww, Dix. Who's fooling whom? Do you think Romney and Ryan are so different than the rest of the Repub party? The war-mongering, conquer the world, invade as many countries as possible while claiming new weapons are necessary philosophical platform upon which the Repub party is standing is alive and well in the back room. One skirmish, one Police action, one incident...one "whatever" is all it will take to scrap any military cut and crank up the budget. Those military sub-contractors must be feeling the pinch now that Obama is scaling back wars. If weapons aren't being used and machinery is not being destroyed how are they supposed to make a buck? McCain, while out of the spotlight, is no doubt working behind the scenes. And we know Cheney. He'd spend his last dime on a bullet even if it was to shoot a friend.

Those folks are there like the ghosts of Christmas past and they'll haunt both Romney and Ryan if they get the White House. War is their business.

As we've seen with Mr. I'm Gonna Close Gitmo and End the Wars... it isn't that easy to do. It's real easy to SAY, just not to actually DO! Obama hasn't scaled back anything, the troops left Iraq precisely according to the schedule laid out by George W. Bush. We're still fighting (and dying) in Afghanistan. We've also become militarily involved in Pakistan, Somalia, Egypt and Syria. We're still awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and things are business as usual with regard to the military. So the idea that Republicans have some exclusive here, and Democrats are committed to doing something different, is just plain FALSE.

 

[Rune]

ROFL at Biden winning a debate. Major Lulz!!!

Really? Biden was in government service before Ryan was born. Biden mopped the floor with Sarin. Ryan has no foriegn policy experience.

 

[Rune]

To WHO?

Everyone except the far, far right. Moderate cons hate him, con dems hate him, independents hate him. Romney's pick was unbelievably stupid, cementing only the very far right, those who already wouldn't vote Obama.

 

[j-mac]

Ryan talks a good game, but he voted for two unfunded wars, two bailouts, and Medicare Part D.

Well, I am absolutely shocked that you disagree with things that were done by republicans...My goodness stop the madness....

 

[j-mac]

Everyone except the far, far right. Moderate cons hate him, con dems hate him, independents hate him. Romney's pick was unbelievably stupid, cementing only the very far right, those who already wouldn't vote Obama.

Yes, Republicans should absolutely be consulting demo's on whom, and how to run.... good God! Who gives a shit what liberals that would never vote for a republican thinks?

 

[Rune]

What sort of experience do you need to be Vice President? Do you need that much or more to be President? Honestly, would you feel safe if Biden were President? Really?

The experience issue is not going to resonate this time. It was a bit more relevant with a man of McCain's age and health.

Are you trying to say Biden doesn't have enough experience to finnish out a term? I think you were thinking Ryan when you typed that.