Well, of course, Bush didn’t want to repeal Obamacare, that would be VERY forward thinking of him. We all know that thinking was not a strong suit for W, much less forward thinking.
(Youtube link warning)
Nonetheless, this.
Shrug someone I’ve never heard of before claiming their policies are the same vs actual policy differences that I can see. I’m going with the latter, thanks.
The difference between a “site” and a “cite” is enormous, though, and one you need to pay more attention to, instead of chalking it off an attempt at punning. When you provide a site, you’re merely pointing us to a location without necessarily vouching for its accuracy (though why bother if you can’t?) BUT when you give us a “cite” you are claiming that it is reliable and you are willing to stand by it.
If you think the difference is trivial, that’s part of your problem: you don’t do your research and you argue on the basis of shit you don’t have any reason to believe is true other than that you want it to be.
How can you be sure of policy differences when Romney refuses to offer any specifics on anything whatsoever? He even said ‘lets pick a number’ for his deduction cap at the last debate. How the hell does he not know what the number needs to be to by now to make the math work?? When is he planning to figure it out, next year? Would you hire a financial planner that just said ‘trust me’ during the interview without giving you any details? If so, what on earth makes you trust Romney? What has he done to earn your trust on anything? His stated positions change seemingly minute to minute, so are you planning to just cross your fingers when you vote and hope that he does the subset of vague things that he said that you actually like, and not the subset of things he has said that are the opposite of that first subset?
Okay, I’ll help you out then. I’m a liberal, we like to help others!
Here is the transcript of the exchange:
Espuelas: "What do you mean by economic security? Regardless of who the ultimate nominee is, what's the general idea that the RNC or the Republican party in general has in terms of this (economic) message?
Franceschi: Well, it’s a message of being able to attain the American dream. It’s less government spending, which a Tarrance Group poll that came out last week actually shows that the majority of Hispanics believe that less government spending is the way out of this deficit crisis. It’s lowering taxes so small businesses can grow, and they can employ more people, because we understand that the private sector is the engine of the economy. It’s not the government. We're going to get the government out of the way, let the private sector grow, let small businesses grow, let people start new small businesses, and let really people take their lives into their own hands and be able to obtain the American dream, not only themselves but all future generals of Americans.
Espuelas: Now, how different is that concept from what were the policies of the Bush administration? The reason I ask that is because there’s some analysis now that is being published, talking about the Bush years being the slowest period of job creation since those statistics were created. Is this a different program or is this that program just updated?
Franceschi: I think it’s that program, just updated. I think the Republican party really stands for some firm ideals of limited government, of support for small businesses, and support for people who are trying to build themselves up by the bootstraps and attain the American dream.
Now, this Franceschi person you have never heard of? She is Specialty Media Press Secretary at the Republican National Committee. She was in this role when she said the above earlier this year, and she is in this role today.
So, for me, I can believe you, random dude on the internet, or I can believe someone who is paid to speak for the RNC.
Hmm, which one has more real information, inside knowledge, etc.
Yeah, tough call that.
Now, let’s be fair. He probably has an intern chasing that pesky red button around the screen even as we speak.
No comment on post #1085?
Did you overlook it, or just ignore it?
Just so nobody forgets: Mitt Romney lied, and both Obama and the moderator called him on his lie. Anyone who believes that the moderator was unfair necessarily believes that the truth is unfair to Romney.
The truth is VERY unfair to Mitt Romney.
He prefers truthiness.
You forgot “If I succeed it’s because I’m smart, tough shit for you, but if I fail, it’s your fault, so bail me out because I’m smart, tough shit for you.”
I see Republicans voting against their own self interest because they are willfully ignorant.
The Romney economic policies are the Bush policies on steroids. Romney will increase the deficit and grow the national debt, all for the benefit of the top 2%. Romney favors class warfare, which the wealthy have been winning for over a decade.
I present this data here all the time. The modal response is silence, so you ought not be surprised.
It’s almost not worth the effort. I went and grabbed actual census data on average household income, summarized it and wasted time trying to format it in a table.
It’s all for naught. Conservatives aren’t swayed by empiricism.
Romney ran up the score higher during the first debate because there was noone else on the field.
Obama won the second debate because he beat the crap out of Romney but at least Romney was there to contest the field so the socre didn’t get as high as the first debate.
The reason the benghazi story is important to Republicans is because Obama has an otherwise unimpeachable foreign policy record. They want to show that this was a pre-planned al Qaeda terrorist attack (that could have been detected and avoided) rather than a spontaneous terrorist attack. So it was STUPID of Romney to put so much stock in whether or not Obama said the words acts of terror (which he did a few times). The information is still coming in but it doesn’t look like al Qaeda.
Also we produced more oil last year than the year Obama took office.
Someone should give Romney this advice.
Your last sentence should read “if only it were true”
Twnety years ago? Yep, poor Ronald Reagan, how in the world did he ever survive?
Its only clear to people like you.
Debaser: He never said “acts of terror” in fact he only said it TWICE!!!
No it doesn’t, not generally.
Did you miss all the handwringing and teeeth gnashing from the left after the last debate?
If only it were as simple as presenting incontrovertible facts.
Its hard to have a deabte where one side says HAHAA WE WON!!! and the other side say “yeah we know” 
Its a much longer debate when one side says HAHAA WE WON!!! and the other side says “only because you cheated”
If either party is more nearly right than the other, then somebody is voting against society’s interests generally. Correct?
Well, y’all should be thrilled to be getting the validation then. Seriously, nothing will satisfy you except getting a Republican in that office, will it?
Well, that’s entirely unacceptable. Sorry to have to break it to you.
I used to puzzle about the “what’s the matter with Kansas” idea that Republicans/conservatives largely vote against their own economic self interests.
However, I’ve been thinking about what is known about the general personality characteristics of conservatives (e.g. authoritarian, fearful, xenophobic). I’ve also been thinking about how they appear to approach many issues during discussion. For instance, in the Voter ID thread, they appear to be motivated by the idea that it’s better to disenfranchise thousands in order to stop one fraudulent voter. When I talk with them about welfare or Medicare, almost invariably their concerns are with a friend of a friend who knows someone who is defrauding the system (or the hoary old welfare queen who drives a Cadillac). Sometimes on the issue of capital punishment they express comfort with the idea that a truly innocent man might be executed as preferable to the idea that a guilty person might go free.
Thus, they appear to be motivated more by the idea that someone else might get over on the system or get away with something, and tend to disregard the larger benefit that accrues for most people from these various issues.
One might even say that when it comes to abortion or gambling or infidelity, there’s often a real sense of “okay for me but not for thee” on these types of issues as well.
So, I’m thinking that the frame might not be that they are voting against their own self-interests, but that they are motivated to vote against others’ interests.
They may be driven more to prevent their neighbor from getting something if there’s a risk they may not. But this doesn’t apply for a certain class, who I suspect they place in a position of authority. It’s expected that such people will disproportionately accrue wealth and power, as long as their neighbor doesn’t.
Just a thought, anyway.
Yup. Somebody somewhere is gettin’ away with something, and we have to put a stop to it!
I rise to quibble. A minor point, perhaps, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
Who is “al Queda”? Perhaps more importantly, who isn’t? Is al Queda an actual organization, with a structure of authority, lines of communication? Are orders passed down from the leaders to the soldiers? What are our factors for inclusion, or exclusion? Is it likely that Shia Muslims are loyal to al Queda, have they forgotten that AlQ sprang from a virulently anti-Shia sub-branch of Islam? How about the Sufi, is it safe to exclude them?
The Afghani policeman who turns on his trainers and kills them, is he AlQ? The Iraqi civilian who’s family was wiped out in George and Dick’s Excellent Military Adventure? He hates America, has he good reason? Certainly we cannot ask him to contribute to the fund to erect a statue to GeeDubya in Baghdad, but does that make him AlQ?
By comparison, the Occupy Movement is a strictly hierarchical organization, with firm lines of authority and defined parameters of inclusion and exclusion.
Many Muslims hate America and the West in general. They think we intend to destroy Islam, and if we have to kill them all to do it, so be it. Its bad enough that they think so, its far, far worse that we give them good reason to. But everyone of them, regardless of their motivation, regardless of their ideology, they are all al Queda?
Who does “look like al Queda”? And who does not?