Hey conservative asshelmets

[franklin]

The only thing that really bugs me right now is everyone wants a candidate that agrees with them on everything.
There is no perfect candidate other than Mitt Romney.

Politics has become my favorite sport since the Jazz suck *** and have no real prospects of contending within the next 3 years. Mitt "MVP" Romney is my team and he's having a perfect season. We're in the GOP Conference Finals now bitches!

 

[The Thriller]

It's not anything new. What did John Kerry run on? " I will beat Bush! "
What did Obama run on? "I am not Bush, but McCain is!"

The only thing that really bugs me right now is everyone wants a candidate that agrees with them on everything.
There is no perfect candidate.


As for all the contraceptive crap, that's a made up issue by democrats. They wanted to force the Catholic Church to fund it, and when R's fought back, they accused R's of trying to ban all contraception, which is complete bull. Now they want Rush to be the issue.

Stupid.

I disagree.

Kerry ran a campaign of "Anything but Bush."

But it wasn't appealing. One big reason? He just didn't seem to have a plan. He didn't connected with people. He flip flopped... Kinda like Mitt...

Obama ran a campaign that spoke "CHANGE."

Remember?

His platform? Cut the Bush Tax Cuts, healthcare reform, and the ending of the wars.

Then the economy fell on its butt, and everything took the back seat to that. But even despite a near collapse of our financial market, 2/3 have been done. 3/3 would have been done had the extension of unemployment benefits was a bargaining chip to extend the cuts.

The Demos didn't make Rush an issue. Rush made HIMSELF the issue when he spoke on his radio show several times calling a student those degrading things. You can't be the mouthpiece of the GOP and call a woman a prostitute and expect no consequences. He said something for shock value and he got it. Probably not in the way he wanted it....

 

[Stoked]

Some interesting notes (to me at least):

Santorum (staunchly Catholic) lost Catholic voters in Ohio by 13% to Romney.

Santorum beat Romney in voters under the age of 44 in Ohio by double digit margins.

Romney won the Urban centers in Ohio which are considered to be more liberal but Santorum won Democrat voters by 20%.

Romney beat Gingrich in TN and OK

Romney got hammered in appalachian counties by everyone.

 

[Scat]

Some interesting notes (to me at least):

Santorum (staunchly Catholic) lost Catholic voters in Ohio by 13% to Romney.

Santorum is a little too conservative for even fellow Catholics. The only religious group that he did well with is evangelicals.

Santorum beat Romney in voters under the age of 44 in Ohio by double digit margins.

This one is odd because typically younger voters trend more liberal.

Romney won the Urban centers in Ohio which are considered to be more liberal but Santorum won Democrat voters by 20%.

Were Dems tyring to muck up the process like they tried in MI?

Romney beat Gingrich in TN and OK

A little surprising for TN but not OK. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the southern states starting next week.

Romney got hammered in appalachian counties by everyone.

What do you want from rednecks?

Several times last night I heard news commentators talking about Romney say such things like, "He's up against the ropes" or "His campaign is floundering" and I had to wonder what the hell they are looking at? He is well in front of any other candidate and is polling well nationally. It's almost like they are trying to kill him off and get anyone but Mitt the nomination.

 

[Stoked]

Santorum is a little too conservative for even fellow Catholics. The only religious group that he did well with is evangelicals.



This one is odd because typically younger voters trend more liberal.



Were Dems tyring to muck up the process like they tried in MI?



A little surprising for TN but not OK. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the southern states starting next week.



What do you want from rednecks?

Several times last night I heard news commentators talking about Romney say such things like, "He's up against the ropes" or "His campaign is floundering" and I had to wonder what the hell they are looking at? He is well in front of any other candidate and is polling well nationally. It's almost like they are trying to kill him off and get anyone but Mitt the nomination.

They want Mitt to win the nomination but they want to drag this out to get viewers. It's about ratings.

As for the Catholic thing, could this come down to Mormons/Catholics vs Evangelicals?

Yes the Dems were trying to interfer in the vote like MI. Take away those votes and Romney wins by more in MI and OH

ALso Obama lost 15 counties in the Dem primary in OK. Lol

 

[Scat]

As for the Catholic thing, could this come down to Mormons/Catholics vs Evangelicals?

I'm curious to see if evangelicals rally around Mitt just to make sure Obama gets the boot or if evangelicals just stay home on election day. I know when I voted in '08 I wrote in my choice instead of voting for either Obama or McCain. Not that it made a ounce of difference in Utah but it could be a big deal in certain states.

 

[Stoked]

I'm curious to see if evangelicals rally around Mitt just to make sure Obama gets the boot or if evangelicals just stay home on election day. I know when I voted in '08 I wrote in my choice instead of voting for either Obama or McCain. Not that it made a ounce of difference in Utah but it could be a big deal in certain states.

I think they will because they are desperate to get Obama out. Taking your ball and going home is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

 

[Scat]

A serious question....

Is anyone else turned off by (all) Republican candidates that say stuff like (insert name here) should be the GOP ticket because they have the best chance of beating Obama?

Huh? What ever happened to, "I'm the best choice because I know how to help America?"

To me, beating Obama is not synonymous with what's best for America (although the Obama haters might disagree w/me).

To me, I don't want Obama to lose if none of the GOP candidates can come up with a coherent and detailed plan that appeals to me.

All of them, haven't revealed any plans. And what little snips we get of their plans, (like more tax cuts, more drilling, and building moon bases) aren't appealing. The bumper sticker phrases, like "Help the private sector" and "Cut government, we need a check economy not a food-stamp economy" doesn't tell me anything.

Anyone else noticing this as well? Anyone else bothered by this?

I guess I could exclude from lumping Paul into the mix. At least Ron Paul isn't ashamed to shake things up or reveal his plans (no matter how weird or radical they might seem)...

To me, more tax cuts and less regulation (which is what I think all of the other candidates have talked about) is just too vague and quite honestly, doesn't inspire confidence. Tax cuts seems to be the wild card that the GOP campaigns on to get votes. Yet, though the wild card is effective at getting votes, I don't think it has proven to be effective in job creation.

try here https://www.mittromney.com/

 

[The Thriller]

try here https://www.mittromney.com/

I wrote just one page ago:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?9266-Hey-conservative-asshelmets

All of them, haven't revealed any plans. And what little snips we get of their plans, (like more tax cuts, more drilling, and building moon bases) aren't appealing. The bumper sticker phrases, like "Help the private sector" and "Cut government, we need a check economy not a food-stamp economy" doesn't tell me anything.

You then give me a link to Mitt's website. When I click on his economic plan I get this:

Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.

sigh.... Not a whole lot of beef there. And the little beef there is, I disagree with. Reduce taxes and regulation? Ummmm... That's not the reason why the economy is struggling. IN fact, that's what got us into the situation we're currently in. We've seen the lack of aid and increased debt reduced taxes have given us in the last decade.

Then, when I clicked on energy I get:

Producing more domestic energy would create good jobs and bolster local economies in a wide variety of energy-producing regions that effectively “export” their product to the rest of the country.

and

Unfortunately, the first three years of the Obama administration have witnessed energy and environmental policies that have stifled the domestic energy sector. In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the President and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs.

The Obama administration’s energy policy has been simply incoherent. For instance, it has blocked off-shore drilling in U.S. waters while applauding increased drilling off the coast of Brazil.

Is there one fact on this entire website? where to even begin with this?

Click on his domestic policy for shrinking government. There is literally NOTHING written there. Medicare and SS: Preserve it.

How are you going to shrink government if you're going to not touch military spending, SS, and Medicare? That's like the Jazz wanting to "clean house" and rebuild by trading Jamaal Tinsley, Carrol, and Evans while signing Harris, Big Al, Millsap, Raja, etc to extensions.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results. Romney doesn't propose anything that isn't/hasn't already been done in the past few years (like lower taxes) and yet he refuses to touch any of the big entitlement programs/military spending. His economic plan doesn't give us any details nor is it anything different than what is currently being done.

 

[Scat]

Funny, when I clicked on energy I got this:

MITT’S PLAN
As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.

Significant Regulatory Reform

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.

-Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
-Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
-Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
-Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
-Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
-Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
-Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years

Increasing Production

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.

-Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
-Open America’s energy reserves for development
-Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
-Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
-Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction

Research and Development

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

-Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
-Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research

That's a bit more in depth than what you claim to have seen... just saying.

 

[Scat]

Romney doesn't propose anything that isn't/hasn't already been done in the past few years (like lower taxes) and yet he refuses to touch any of the big entitlement programs/military spending.

On Medicare:

OVERVIEW
President Obama has had three years in office, during which time he has attacked every serious proposal to preserve and strengthen America’s entitlement programs while enacting cuts to Medicare and putting in place a bureaucratic board that one day may ration the care available through the program. Mitt Romney has laid out the approach he would take to modernizing America’s entitlement programs, guaranteeing their continued vitality for future generations. Mitt’s proposals would not affect today’s seniors or those nearing retirement, and they would not raise taxes. But he proposes that tomorrow’s Medicare should give beneficiaries a generous defined contribution, or “premium support,” and allow them to choose between private plans and traditional Medicare.

Mitt’s plan honors commitments to current seniors while giving the next generation an improved program that offers the freedom to choose what their coverage under Medicare should look like. Instead of paying providers directly for medical services, the government’s role will be to help future seniors pay for an insurance option that provides coverage at least as good as today’s Medicare, and to offer traditional Medicare as one of the insurance options that seniors can choose. With insurers competing against each other to provide the best value to customers, efficiency and quality will improve and costs will decline. Seniors will be allowed to keep the savings from less expensive options or choose to pay more for costlier plans.

Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan

Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors
Frequently Asked Questions About Mitt’s Plan

What are the immediate effects of this plan?
This plan has no effect on current seniors or those nearing retirement. It will go into effect for younger Americans when they reach retirement in the future.

How is this different from the Ryan Plan?
Shortly after Mitt presented the proposal described here, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bipartisan proposal that almost precisely mirrors Mitt’s ideas. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration immediately rejected the proposal. Mitt has applauded the Ryan-Wyden effort and looks forward to working as president with leaders from both sides of the aisle to implement meaningful reforms that will preserve Medicare for future generations.

How high will the premium support be? How quickly will it grow?
Mitt continues to work on refining the details of his plan, and he is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost. His goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today’s seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program.

How will the plan impact total Medicare spending?
The total impact on spending will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of premium support increase and the effect of competitive pressure on providers. By replacing the inefficiency of the current system with a competitive, market-oriented system in which every provider – including the government – wants to find the most efficient way to provide high quality care, the plan puts the future of Medicare on a sound footing to meet the needs of future generations.

How will traditional Medicare remain an option?
Traditional Medicare will compete against private plans. It will be operated by the government and funded by premiums, co-insurance, and deductibles that are set at the level necessary to cover its costs. The attractiveness of this option to future seniors will depend on how its efficiency and quality compares to that offered by other providers in the marketplace. Future seniors will benefit from the innovation and competition among options.

How will seniors be affected by the costs of different options?
Future seniors will be able to enjoy the savings from selecting less expensive plans, or choose to pay more for costlier options. When the insurance premium costs less than the support provided, the balance will be available in an HSA-like account to pay for other out-of-pocket health expenses.

I'm not sure you really looked all that closely at his website.

 

[The Thriller]

Funny, when I clicked on energy I got this:



That's a bit more in depth than what you claim to have seen... just saying.

You went further down the page. And yet, it still tells you nothing.

Research and Development

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research

So government does have a role to play in innovation in the energy development but then it shouldn't? Seems contradictory. You can't have it both ways, that it be involved in the development of alternative energies and yet blasted for being involved when a company fails to produce results. And how will Mitt guarantee that his government won't favor companies that are politically favorable to him?

Typical Romney, wanting to sit on the fence and play both sides. All while offering no details or plans.

And "Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research" what does this mean exactly? And how is this different than ANYBODY in the past 50 years has said about energy research?

So once again, thanks for illustrating my point Scat.

 

[The Thriller]

On Medicare:



I'm not sure you really looked all that closely at his website.

Offering HSA and insurance options isn't going to change Medicare. Nor significantly lower its costs to the US gov. Or even prove beneficial to most old folks. If you believe this, I have some prime real estate in Florida to sell ya.

This is a fun game! Keep swingin!

 

[Scat]

Offering HSA and insurance options isn't going to change Medicare. Nor significantly lower its costs to the US gov. Or even prove beneficial to most old folks. If you believe this, I have some prime real estate in Florida to sell ya.

This is a fun game! Keep swingin!

You said that he wasn't willing to address entitlement issues. Whether you agree or not with his proposals, he has laid out a plan to address medicare reform.

 

[Stoked]

You said that he wasn't willing to address entitlement issues. Whether you agree or not with his proposals, he has laid out a plan to address medicare reform.

Scat he is clearly against Romney, which is fine, so why waste your time? He has a CT approach here. Even if you disprove his statements he will argue that you havent. There is no winning so why bother?

 

[Stoked]

You went further down the page. And yet, it still tells you nothing.


So government does have a role to play in innovation in the energy development but then it shouldn't? Seems contradictory. You can't have it both ways, that it be involved in the development of alternative energies and yet blasted for being involved when a company fails to produce results. And how will Mitt guarantee that his government won't favor companies that are politically favorable to him?

Typical Romney, wanting to sit on the fence and play both sides. All while offering no details or plans.

And "Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research" what does this mean exactly? And how is this different than ANYBODY in the past 50 years has said about energy research?

So once again, thanks for illustrating my point Scat.

It is not different. The problem is that they (politicians/snakeoil salesmen) speak a big game but then fail to follow thru 95% of the time. Not saying Romney is different then any other politician.

It just seems that you are hating on Romney for being a politician...

 

[The Thriller]

You said that he wasn't willing to address entitlement issues. Whether you agree or not with his proposals, he has laid out a plan to address medicare reform.

He doesn't!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...ort-details/chWrzplNoy7zbKvIJ2EFKM/story.html

If Romney wins the Republican nomination, his plan promises to become a major issue in the general election against President Obama. Obama’s forces have begun characterizing Romney’s solution as a bid to dismantle Medicare, even though it contains concepts that have been backed by some Democrats.

“It shouldn’t be a surprise that Romney’s Medicare plan is missing the details,’’ said Kara Carscaden, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

The downside for seniors is they would be exposed to potential costs that they do not pay now. Some analysts fault Romney’s plan for its lack of detail on this crucial point, saying it amounts to a politically calculated attempt to appear simultaneously bold yet protective of the popular entitlement.

“He’s trying to put in place something but he doesn’t want to admit what it would do,’’ said Stuart Altman, a national health policy professor at Brandeis University. “It’s going to start extracting more money from beneficiaries. Romney’s been very vague to hide what are tough political issues. He clearly wants to have his cake and eat it too.’’

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and former Obama health adviser who helped craft the health reform law, criticized Romney for failing to address a crucial point: “This is nothing more than a cost shift from the government to individuals. There’s nothing built in that has any serious cost control.’’

Other important details are missing from his plan, health policy analysts say, including the size of vouchers and how they would grow. Romney also does not provide estimates on how much the plan would save the federal government.[/B] Nor does his proposal address how geographic variances in costs may affect premiums and seniors’ options. Without knowing these answers, the plan is difficult to evaluate, analysts say.

“The details really matter because they ultimately determine what it will mean for seniors’ costs and for Medicare spending,’’ said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and director of the organization’s Medicare research.

Senior advocates lambasted Romney’s plan. While it preserves traditional Medicare as an option, they contend, it would ultimately erode the program.

“Instead of eliminating Medicare, this is an approach that would lead to it withering on the vine,’’ said Max Richtman, chief executive of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Older, sicker seniors would be more likely to opt for traditional Medicare while younger, healthier ones would choose cheaper, less comprehensive private plans, Richtman said. That would mean the Medicare plan would cost the government more, because it would be paying to care for the sickest patients.

 

[The Thriller]

It is not different. The problem is that they (politicians/snakeoil salesmen) speak a big game but then fail to follow thru 95% of the time. Not saying Romney is different then any other politician.

It just seems that you are hating on Romney for being a politician...

No, I understand that they're all politicians. But in order to gain the moderates' vote, you need to actually propose something meaningful. Instead of blaming everything on Obama, repeating these worn out phrases (ex DRILL BABY DRILL), and offering cheap "solutions" like tax cuts, less regulation, and "competition" in health care.

that doesn't mean anything. They aren't plans.

 

[Stoked]

Thriller that IS addrerssing it. It may be a terrible, horrible approach but it is still addressing the issue!

And on that note have fun with your arguement!

 

[The Thriller]

Scat he is clearly against Romney, which is fine, so why waste your time? He has a CT approach here. Even if you disprove his statements he will argue that you havent. There is no winning so why bother?

Any website that states that Obama has stifled oil production here in the US while encouraging oil production in Brazil loses most if not all credibility in my mind.

Oil production under Obama hit levels not seen since 1987, fuel is our #1 export, and "encouraging Brazil" was a deal made under Bush. Under the Bush administration is was agreed that we would give Petrobras a loan of a few billion to explore the Santos region. The deal included the paying back of the loan plus they would need to buy equipment from US factories.