I have no issues with any critiquing of public figures but this is an argument I've just not understood: it seems to me that President Obama was pretty up front about what he'd do from the Executive and has taken every reasonable effort to produce such. :confused:

Not liking what has occurred is one thing (which I still disagree with but this is America) but pretending it was a secret since the Democratic primaries strikes me as ridiculous.

The right wing noise machine had certainly been fixated on the notion that the health care plan was rammed down people's throats. To the contrary, the plan slowly plodded through the legislative process for nearly a year. Moreover, the bill had so many fingerprints on it by the time it finally became law that that it is silly to suggest that Obama imposed his will on the people. Finally, he campaigned on health care reform, including universal coverage. The People were well aware of that goal when they went to the voting booth. It is beyond me how anyone can claim that Obama engaged in some sort of totalitarian oppression by enacting a central plank of his platform.

Regards,

D-Ray

It makes it a choice with financial disincentives rather than a fine for breaking the law. Just one example. The Obama health care bill is sloppy and full of problems like this and worse. Obama's personal input appears to have been minimal. He's too elite to get his hands dirty with the details. His job is to take the credit if it's successful and distance himself if it's not. He doesn't have a stake in anything. Romney fought out details of the legislation at nearly every turn and personally mediated to get things passed in the end. His approach will be a refreshing change. He has a record of advocating tolerance on social issues as well and I'm pretty sure that if he all of the sudden decided to support something like same sex marriage he wouldn't be going around bragging that he is single handedly leading the revolution of social change in America the way Obama is bragging now.

No. There is no difference. Whether you "fine" someone for not doing as they are told, or "provide financial disincentive" is same-same. It is still using financial punishment to force someone to act against their will. IT'S THE SAME THING.

Maybe Obama didn't consider himself an expert on health insurance and left it to professionals in the field to draft the legislation? Maybe he figured copying Mitts ideas was good enough since Mitt seems to be such an omniscient being?:p

Mitt has a record of advancing social issues when it's politically expedient. Like all politicians do. What are his stance on those issues at the moment? That's what you need to ask. And be quick about it, because it changes daily, depending on whom he's speaking to.

He's a world class "flip-flopper".

That was the point of this video, and it demonstrates it quite well. You know it's the truth and it burns your ass, doesn't it?

Oh, and BTW. If he does win, he will be inheriting a country in better, albeit slighty, shape than that horrendous mess that incompetent Republican left Obama. (And, I'm sure, deep down inside, you know that as well.):rolleyes:

Unlike the Shrub I doubt it will take him eight years to flush it down the toilet, I just hope in the euphoria after a GOP win the housing market improves so we can rake the maximum profit out of this place.:rolleyes:

My problem with Obama has primarily revolved around the lack of integrity and leadership qualities which adversely affect his ability to effectively do his job. I understand that being president of the US is a little like trying to steer an oil tanker with a 20 inch wooden wheel, but this president has simply made a lot of promises (way too many) and failed to deliver. Whether it be through lack of experience or simply arrogance, he is described by insiders as aloof and very insulated within Washington, failing to do the legwork which is required to accomplish initiatives in a democrativc system. He has repeatedly failed, when opportunities abound, to take a principled stance on much of anything. His values seem fluent and his principles seem for sale. I understand that it takes a politican to get where he is, but he doesn`t seem to understand the power and responsibility of his office. His petty bragging, empty speeches, and divisive hypocrisy are far beneath what should be expected from the most powerful office in the world. He has continued to act like a small bit local politician in city government somewhere. He is clearly no uniter and is definitelty not post partisan (as he tried to pass himself off in `08) and his performance (or non-performance) on the economy and his record breaking runaway deficit spending has been nearly criminal.

The newsmedia hasn`t been objective or truthful regarding Obama. Compare him to some other presidents in the way he acts and with what he has actually accomplished. He simply does not measure up and it is a tragedy for the country which apparently had so much hope.

For those who aren`t sure about Romney, he is even worth a poker gamble considering what we have going on now. You`ve gotta know when to fold em and Obama`s poker hand has been bluffed as far as it can be. Simply time for some new cards. Nothing personal (although you can bet this desperate campaign will be... and Obama`s probably not going to come out looking like a nice guy).

In that one word, you said much. Euphoria; a feeling of well being, in the absence of any basis in reality.

Gotta run. I`ll catch up later.

As to the subject of this thread I am curious, is there a "real" Romnney or is he all facade?

I try to use the appropriate words, good thing that I have a reasonable vocabulary.;)