Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=12thMan;936968]You're complaining about Defense cuts that Republicans voted for? That makes no sense. They crafted the bill and voted for it. Period. Period!

[B]Mitt Romney is a failed candidate[/B]. And I still dare you to put any Republicans record against Obama's on his commitment to our troops and veterans. No one even come close, especially Bush I who sent our boys into harms way without adequate body armor.

Don't pedal your Republican talking points about how the right care for our troops when your god damn nominee nor his lying VP didn't bother to mention them one damn time. Get outta here. Romney is clueless.[/quote]

Well if you look at Mass. and the problems he had to face and Obama and the problems he had to face Mitt did a better job. I'm not a fan of Romney care but he turned that state around. Obama has spent over 15 trillion and we are still in a hugh hole that is just getting bigger.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;936897]Fox News criticizing DNC for not including God in their platform.
[url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80683.html?hp=l2]Dick Durbin, Fox host duel over ‘God’ - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com[/url][/quote]

Good. At least someone's keeping church separate from state.

Conservatives will always be a joke to me until they can stop pandering to evangelicals. If Republicans would stick to cutting spending, small government and staying as far away from social issues as possible (i.e. leaving abortion and gay-marriage as a STATE ISSUE and stop beating everyone over the head with religion and viewing everyone who is different from them either religiously or sexually as godless heathens), I MIGHT be able to respect them. Hell maybe even see some issues from their angle. Otherwise my allegiances lie with democrats. The economy is important to me but social issues are as well.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937043]Good. At least someone's keeping church separate from state.

Conservatives will always be a joke to me until they can stop pandering to evangelicals. If Republicans would stick to cutting spending, small government and staying as far away from social issues as possible (i.e. leaving abortion and gay-marriage as a STATE ISSUE and stop beating everyone over the head with religion and viewing everyone who is different from them either religiously or sexually as godless heathens), I MIGHT be able to respect them. Hell maybe even see some issues from their angle. Otherwise my allegiances lie with democrats. The economy is important to me but social issues are as well.[/quote]

Where have you been? Its the left and Obama trying to make gay marrage a federal issue. You do know some state recognize gay marriage Also Mitt has said Abortion is a court issue and it is not on the ballot. Its the left trying to bring abiortion into the debate every chance they get. He has also said in the past that if anything he thinks it should become a state issue and not a federal issue. So it seems you have your wish. Next time you hear those issue brought up think about the source and you will see its from the left.

Mitts Stance On Abortion

Abortion burned as a front burner issue in 1994. Romney established himself as a passionate supporter of abortion rights early on in the campaign, despite his personal opposition to abortion. In fact, his professed views would grow more liberal over the course of the race. Romney initially said he opposed Medicaid funding for abortion. He later softened that position to say he favored leaving the question of coverage up to the states. Romney also endorsed the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug, and appeared in June at a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood. Ann Romney gave the group $150.

Romney asserted that his family had supported a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion ever since the October 1963 death of his brother-in-law's sister, Ann Hartman Keenan, from complication following an illegal abortion. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p,183 Jan 17, 2012 [/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=firstdown;937052]

Mitts Stand On Abortion....THIS WEEK!!!

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1] [/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]



Fixed!!!

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=Daseal;937025]Slingin, this sentence contradicts itself. Lack of regulation in banking circles caused the mortgage crisis -- later you complain about over-regulation. You want the government to stick their head in and keep consumers from themselves when something goes wrong, but complain about overregulation? Pick one and stick to it.[/quote]No contradiction if you understand the issues/problems.

It was not lack of regulation that caused the mortgage crisis. It was gov't interference in the mortgage markets that essentially forced the banks to underwrite shaky loans. When the GOP and even Bill Clinton came out prior to the crisis and said we need to put the brakes on here and get this under control....in a prudent way...the Dems (Frank, M. Waters, etc) said move along, nothing to see here, Freddie and Fannie are fine.

Jump to post crisis and knee-jerk regulations such as Dodd-Frank stiffle growth across all sectors of the economy.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937043]Good. At least someone's keeping church separate from state.[/quote]I don't think it's a problem to at least acknowldge the good Lord in the party platform. That's certainly not pushing religion on anyone. I think the Dems have swung too far away from God/religion and should track back to the middle a bit.

[quote]Conservatives will always be a joke to me until they can stop pandering to evangelicals. If Republicans would stick to cutting spending, small government and staying as far away from social issues as possible (i.e. [B]leaving abortion and gay-marriage as a STATE ISSUE and stop beating everyone over the head with religion and viewing everyone who is different from them either religiously or sexually as godless heathens[/B]), I MIGHT be able to respect them. Hell maybe even see some issues from their angle. Otherwise my allegiances lie with democrats. The economy is important to me but social issues are as well.[/quote]We agree here and fiscal conservatives / social moderates are working within the GOP to track to the middle as well. I think, if elected you'll see Mitt be socially moderate as in MA.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=firstdown;937052]Where have you been? Its the left and Obama trying to make gay marrage a federal issue. You do know some state recognize gay marriage Also Mitt has said Abortion is a court issue and it is not on the ballot. Its the left trying to bring abiortion into the debate every chance they get. He has also said in the past that if anything he thinks it should become a state issue and not a federal issue. So it seems you have your wish. Next time you hear those issue brought up think about the source and you will see its from the left.

Mitts Stand On Abortion

Abortion burned as a front burner issue in 1994. Romney established himself as a passionate supporter of abortion rights early on in the campaign, despite his personal opposition to abortion. In fact, his professed views would grow more liberal over the course of the race. Romney initially said he opposed Medicaid funding for abortion. He later softened that position to say he favored leaving the question of coverage up to the states. Romney also endorsed the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug, and appeared in June at a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood. Ann Romney gave the group $150.

Romney asserted that his family had supported a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion ever since the October 1963 death of his brother-in-law's sister, Ann Hartman Keenan, from complication following an illegal abortion. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p,183 Jan 17, 2012 [/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Sure he won't have a hand in it. He'll just nominate supreme court judges who WOULD overturn it. This is one of his promises. Just like he pledged to sign a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Or did he flip flop on that issue too?

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[QUOTE=DynamiteRave;937060]Sure he won't have a hand in it. He'll just nominate supreme court judges who WOULD overturn it. This is one of his promises. [B]Just like he pledged to sign a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Or did he flip flop on that issue too?[/[/B]QUOTE]

Did you even read the link.

Romney asserted that his family had supported a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion ever since the October 1963 death of his brother-in-law's sister, Ann Hartman Keenan, from complication following an illegal abortion. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p,183 Jan 17, 2012 [/SIZE][/FONT]


Strike two:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a conservative Iowa Christian group's far-reaching pledge opposing gay marriage, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to reject it.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=firstdown;937061][QUOTE=DynamiteRave;937060]Sure he won't have a hand in it. He'll just nominate supreme court judges who WOULD overturn it. This is one of his promises. [B]Just like he pledged to sign a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Or did he flip flop on that issue too?[/[/B]QUOTE]

Did you even read the link.

Romney asserted that his family had supported a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion ever since the October 1963 death of his brother-in-law's sister, Ann Hartman Keenan, from complication following an illegal abortion. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p,183 Jan 17, 2012 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Nope. Because 1994 Romney isn't 2012 "I'm pandering to the religious right" Romney. Give me updated data and we can talk.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937060]Sure he won't have a hand in it. He'll just nominate supreme court judges who WOULD overturn it. This is one of his promises. [B]Just like he pledged to sign a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Or did he flip flop on that issue too?[/B][/quote]

He did sign the pledge

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=firstdown;937063]He did sign the pledge[/quote]

Maybe you should post the whole link next time.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mitt-romney-marriage-vow-pledge_n_896617.html]Mitt Romney Rejects The Family Leader's 'Marriage Vow' Pledge[/url]

Two of Romney's rivals for the Republican nomination, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have signed the The Family Leader's 14-point pledge, which calls on the candidates to denounce same-sex marriage rights, pornography, same-sex military accommodations and forms of Islamic law.

When it was first circulated last week, the introduction to the pledge stated that African American children were more likely to be raised in two-parent households when they were born into slavery than they are today. The group struck that language and apologized after black ministers complained, but it said it stands by the rest of the document.

This isn't an AMERICAN pledge. It's just some crazy-ass crackpot's pledge.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Oh.

p.s. That's from last year.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Anyway. This thread wasn't supposed to turn into this. Back to your regularly scheduled convention.

Bill Clinton tonight? Good? Bad?

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937066]Bill Clinton tonight? Good? Bad?[/quote]


[IMG]http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1346886081681261296.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/just-in-democrats-to-update-platform-with-jerusalem-reference/?hpt=hp_t1]Just in: Democrats update platform with Jerusalem, God reference – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url]


:doh:

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937073][url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/just-in-democrats-to-update-platform-with-jerusalem-reference/?hpt=hp_t1]Just in: Democrats update platform with Jerusalem, God reference – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs[/url]


:doh:[/quote]

Bent under pressure.

Should be interesting to see what they threw together.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

i watched the first lady last night. makes me think about how much is wrong at the very top.

we need to ban parties altogether, boiling it down to 1 choice between the same 2 parties every 4 years...
i'm not going to mcdonald's because they pissed all over my food last time, oh ok i'll just go to burger king because they only pissed on my fries the time before last ...then i'll go back to mcdonald's. can't go to wendy's or anywhere else because presidential primaries are more useful than electricity

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=los panda;937093]i watched the first lady last night. makes me think about how much is wrong at the very top.

we need to ban parties altogether, boiling it down to 1 choice between the same 2 parties every 4 years...
i'm not going to mcdonald's because they pissed all over my food last time, oh ok i'll just go to burger king because they only pissed on my fries the time before last ...then i'll go back to mcdonald's. can't go to wendy's or anywhere else because presidential primaries are more useful than electricity[/quote]

I think the 2 party system is broken. It'd be nice to see independents, the green party and libertarians actually have a leg to stand on.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Agreed. People get so wrapped up in being part of a single party that they don't even think of the facts (not that either group does what they say). I've had to de-friend at least a dozen friends on Facebook this year because of random garbage posting that has no bearing on what this country needs to care about.

I don't care how you feel about abortion/gun control/the rest/etc. etc. etc. etc. I want to know what your party is going to do for me and my family. Those issues and that debate aren't going to matter to me.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937066]Anyway. This thread wasn't supposed to turn into this. Back to your regularly scheduled convention.

Bill Clinton tonight? Good? Bad?[/quote]No matter what, agree or disagree, he will be interesting.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html]Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post[/url]

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: [B][I]She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,”[/I][/B] says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/fighting-forward-together--the-clich%C3%A9s-of-the-democratic-convention.html]Fighting forward together: the clichés of the Democratic convention - Yahoo! News[/url]

Decent article.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937080]Bent under pressure.

Should be interesting to see what they threw together.[/quote]Just saw a replay of the voice vote to ammend the Dem platform....what a mess. It sure sounded like a 50/50 split and then booos when it was passed.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937095]I think the 2 party system is broken. It'd be nice to see independents, the green party and libertarians actually have a leg to stand on.[/quote]


[YT]s7tWHJfhiyo[/YT]

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=12thMan;937026]Good lord, somebody time stamp this post. I agreed with literally, almost, everything you wrote.

Did someone hack your account? You're right both sides need to grow up a little bit and put some skin in the game.[/quote]
LOL ! Until both parties grow spines and go to there base/s and say , we are sorry but we have less $$$$ for you , we will keep running around in circles . I almost wish we had zero political parties and politicians focused on what is best for the country , period .

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937128]Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html]Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post[/url]

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: [B][I]She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,”[/I][/B] says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.[/quote]

Sandra Fluke was a tad off putting. Tossed out some red meat to the crowd. Not too bad.

Bill Clinton hit out of the park and into the next state. It was a brilliant speech from start to finish. That's what people will remember. Obama has to close the deal tonight.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;937128]Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html]Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post[/url]

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: [B][I]She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,”[/I][/B] says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.[/quote]

I dunno much about Fluke but I thought Cecile Richards got the whole, "women deserve to choose about their own health issues" point without trotting Fluke out there.

But I suppose it could've been worse. I don't think it's necessarily going to "hurt" the democrats but she probably didn't help them much. Although this was probably to drive home the need of birth control to people already within the party. But then again it was Clinton who was supposed to appeal to indepdendents and the fence sitters, not Fluke. She's a drop of water in the ocean.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=12thMan;937205]Bill Clinton hit out of the park and into the next state. It was a brilliant speech from start to finish. That's what people will remember. Obama has to close the deal tonight.[/quote]Clinton is the most masterful politician of our age. Reagan was close, but Clinton could sell a bag of $hit to a manure company.

That being said, same old/same old D arguments and talking points (tax breaks for millionaires, grandma over the cliff, blah, blah, blah) but Clinton delivers them more effectively than anyone. I don't see any way Obama will be able to top that.

Side note, I know he's getting older but I noticed his hands shaking a bit and at one point I think he noticed it himself and put his right hand down to his side. I hope he isn't struggling with a health issue he's keeping private.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Now, that is something relevant to my interests. I know that Democrats tend to harp on the tax breaks for the wealthy and tax increase for the middle class. Is this true? If so, does anyone have any websites or facts to back that up?

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;937080]Bent under pressure.

Should be interesting to see what they threw together.[/quote]

This is what they threw together. WTF and you guys joked about Clint E. sorry I missed this live. I'd say it was about a 50/50 vote and they even bood adding it. My question is if they had to add god to the platform does that mean they actually voted to not have god at the convention? LMAO

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg"]Amidst Boos And Multiple Votes, DNC Reverses Position And Reinstates Jerusalem - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;937099][B]Agreed. People get so wrapped up in being part of a single party that they don't even think of the facts (not that either group does what they say)[/B]. I've had to de-friend at least a dozen friends on Facebook this year because of random garbage posting that has no bearing on what this country needs to care about.

I don't care how you feel about abortion/gun control/the rest/etc. etc. etc. etc. I want to know what your party is going to do for me and my family. Those issues and that debate aren't going to matter to me.[/quote]

This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=mooby;937285]This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.[/quote]

I've voted across party lines in State elections. In Va. alot Dems would be considered a Rep. in other states. We are pretty much a conservative state and that's why we are running on a surplus.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=mooby;937285]This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.[/quote]

Exactly. And in the meantime, we can just listen to both sides go back and forth on abortion or gun control when we have MUCH more pressing issues that never seem to even be mentioned.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

when i registered to vote, i had to choose a party.
are you still unable to vote unless you claim a party?

if so, why?

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;937241]Now, that is something relevant to my interests. I know that Democrats tend to harp on the tax breaks for the wealthy and tax increase for the middle class. Is this true? If so, does anyone have any websites or facts to back that up?[/quote]

[url=http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/]FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise[/url]


[quote]The TPC’s detailed calculations showed that — before any reduction of tax deductions — Romney’s plan would result in 99.97 percent of those making $1 million a year or more getting a tax cut (compared with what they pay now) and that the cuts would average $256,603 each. But further down the income scale, the benefit would be considerably less. For those making between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, 94 percent would see a tax cut, and it would average $1,226, before any loss of deductions or credits. These cuts are all in addition to those enacted during the Bush administration, and Romney would not allow those to expire as scheduled.[/quote]




[quote]The Romney campaign insists that economic growth will somehow make its tax plan work as promised, but we’ve seen nothing to support that. Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. Looney, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, calls that “an implausibly large estimate,” but nevertheless ran the study again assuming that growth rate and an additional 12 million jobs. The result, he told ABC News, is that it would offset only about 15 percent of Romney’s revenue loss from individual tax cuts.

“Even in that case, there’s still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low- and or middle-income taxpayers,” Looney told ABC News. “It’s smaller, but it would require a net tax increase on the middle class.”[/quote]


So basically, it will end up with the middle class having a increase on their taxes (due to deductions being closed ...mort interests, etc) while the rich get a 250k tax break. For Romney to be such a great business man, his numbers have never added up.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=los panda;937303]when i registered to vote, i had to choose a party.
are you still unable to vote unless you claim a party?

if so, why?[/quote]Just register as an Independent.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=NC_Skins;937307][URL="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/"]FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise[/URL]










So basically, it will end up with the middle class having a increase on their taxes (due to deductions being closed ...mort interests, etc) while the rich get a 250k tax break. For Romney to be such a great business man, his numbers have never added up.[/quote]

Nice, facts are good. Thanks!

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;937241]Now, that is something relevant to my interests. I know that Democrats tend to harp on the tax breaks for the wealthy and tax increase for the middle class. Is this true? If so, does anyone have any websites or facts to back that up?[/quote]TMC, FactCheck is quite biased towards Obama and they cite the Tax Policy Center (another left-biased group) analysis of Romney's plan....which has been shown to be speculation rather than fact. Here is a good read from the WSJ which debunks the Dems claims on RomneyHood (robbing from the Middle Class to feed the Rich).

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read]Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com[/url]

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

I'll read them both, but does that lean more towards the right? I'd love to read something that's fairly neutral.

Re: Democratic National Convention 2012
 

Malcolm, Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp. i.e. Rupert Murdoch.