I thought Mrs. Romney was very artificial and stiff. The things she said about all the roles we women play were true, but more for our Mother's generation. She was discussing things like helping the kids write the book report while waiting for hubby to get home, when most Mom's work, something she is unfamiliar with. I live in NJ, and as much as I dislike what Chris Christie is doing to the environment and other things in my state, I admire his attitude, and the fact he opened with,"Do you want to be loved or respected?" As a politician, you need respect (though he made us sound like a mob state again, lol)! No speaker even mentioned Mitt until about 3/4 through their speeches, as if they couldn't think of any good points about him. Ann looked mad as hell when Christie was speaking, though he did mostly promote himself. I think Mitt acted surprised to look up and find himself at a convention. Do you really think he wants to run for President, or that she wants to be a First Lady? It was all weird.
Typical posting from the left. Are you electing a President or a first lady? Horoscopes... really?
Maybe you don't know a mother who suffers from MS, but I do, and every day is an act, an act to make your loved ones and those who look to you for strength not notice your pain. Cast your stones towards a woman who has been through more than you know, as it will surely make you feel better. If she came across as “stiff” it just may be because she was having a searing pain in her side. Cowardly crap talking, hollow, baseless, shallow, clueless, and thoughtless blame games from the left as usual.
The person who started the thread asked for our opinions of Ann Romney's speech. Jean Bakula responded with her opinion. You don't agree. Tough gazotz!
I have a severe case of scoliosis myself, and just am recovering from 3 days where I was doubled over in pain, as is often the case. I had two fusion operations by the time I was 10. I am familiar with pain as it is a constant in my life, but I am strong and intelligent, and lucky enough to have a nice husband and a young adult son who makes me proud. I act everyday to make it look like I'm not doing deep breathing exercises to keep the pain at bay while I try to run a household. I have stopped working for now, but do not collect disability because I do not want to feel defeated. Writing is creative energy, and something I can do easily without hurting myself. You are an insensitve jerk. How dare you presume all this about me and call me these vile names? Everyone has problems, and many people who write here have health issues. Ann Romney is a phony, and Mitt has no good ideas. As far as Astrology, I have studied for 35 years, I'm good at it, and have made a living of it at times, which I'm leaning towards again. You obviously are a small minded idiot and have no knowledge of Astrology, or any tolerance for anyone different than you. Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder because you have to take of someone you supposedly love so much. And all the First Ladies get involved in this period of history. My point was that Ann did nothing to "soften his image" he was just as wooden with her.
First I want to ask your forgiveness for coming across so confrontational. You are lucky to have two loved ones who support you.
Whether you have health issues or not, I feel that if you don’t really know a person that you shouldn’t judge them. To say someone is a “phony” whom you have never met, and only heard speak on tv doesn’t seem fair. I just read through my comment, and can’t find anywhere that I said you are anything. I did attempt to make a correlation between your comments, and those of the usual hateful left. I’m sorry that you did feel the need to attack me, but I can understand your defensiveness. I didn’t understand what you meant by “Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder because you have to take of someone you supposedly love so much.” To clarify I was speaking of my mother-in-law, if that matters. The chip on my shoulder is a result of the absence of real substance in 95% of the conversation pertaining to the problems we face as a nation. Even if she was as likable to you as your favorite speaker, would that make any difference in how we solve our nation’s problems?
Again I’m sorry I was so easily aggravated by your comments, I guess I need to just ignore these types of postings. I still couldn’t figure out what the vile names where that I called you. None the less I wish you luck in your goals, and hope that one day the world will provide a cure for your suffering.
"I feel that if you don’t really know a person that you shouldn’t judge them."
In my opinion it's perfectly possible to judge politicians based on their voting record and their public statements. After all, voting is a form of judging candidates. For example, I've never met Newt Gingrich, but I've concluded that he's a lying rat based on his marital and political records. And George Bush may be a nice guy, but he was a lousy president based on his record--two needless, endless, foolish, costly wars, a huge deficit caused by his unfunded Medicare drug plan which was a gift to the big drug companies but a donut with a hole in it for the elderly, the wars and a tax cut for the richest Americans.
I've served in both of the most recent wars, and agree that they were not completely in the best interest of America. Iraq doesn’t deserve comment, but Afghanistan I feel was justified initially. The only problem with the war in Afghanistan has been the political correctness of trying to build a nation that was never built in the first place. They seem to be stuck in the Stone Age. If we nuked them you wouldn’t be able to tell a difference. I don’t think we should nuke them, so please don’t take it that way. Afghani’s will be killing each other, pouring acid on their wives faces, and continually hating you and me just because we are American’s for the foreseeable future regardless. I do believe that some retaliation was need for 9-11, and I don’t believe that our government was responsible for 9-11.
I believe that the most recent wars have been “needless, endless, foolish, and costly” because American’s as a whole can’t hold a candle to the character, drive, strength, and sacrifices of America’s greatest generation, the generation that won the last world war. Our own little bubbles are all we seem to care about now days.
If you believe that you can judge politicians based on their voting record and public statements, do you support Obama? If so, can you tell me what voting record of his you look to while giving said support? I don’t have much respect for any politian in our recent history, bar a few. The only thing I can think of that our current President has successfully done, was to pass the “Affordable Care Act” with a completely democratic controlled congress, against about 52% of American’s wishes… whether it is affordable…the future will tell, maybe.
On a side note do you think America is great?
I thought you were calling me personally the names you threw out at what you view as "the liberal left." I think we can tell pretty much by a person's body language, and when I said I thought Ann Romney looked "stiff" I meant she looked emotionally uncomfortable, and like she didn't want to be there. I have seen her speak much better at other times. Then when she and her husband walked off the stage, they didn't know which way to go. I think had it been myself and husband, one of us would have gently pulled the other in one direction or the other, so as not to look as if we didn't know whether to go right or left, or make such a simple decision without being told. This is how Romney comes across to me, like he has to be told everything by someone else. Unfortunately, in a political election, we are forced to judge people we don't know, and never met personally, which makes the choice all that much more difficult. We can never know what's in their hearts. In general I think Republicans get the U.S. into more wars, and the military budget is way too high. I see McCain embarrassed that the tea party and far right highjacked the party, and they seem lost to me. I missed his speech, and only caught parts of it later, but like you, respect his service, but feel he has let some oddballs in the R party compromise him. Not that the left is doing a lot better, but in all fairness, the R's hate Obama so much he could solve every problem and they would oppose him. It's a shame the U.S. can't get past this awful two party situation, where we are forced to be left or right, with a whole set of preconceived notions that we get attributed to us, and probably have different views in different areas. And if you belong to one of the fringe parties, as you are, your vote doesn't have enough people behind it to win, even if you have a great candidate. So I agree that it is annoying that we as a country aren't solving problems that wouldn't be so hard to solve if everyone stopped being so petty. If I had not been up for 3 nights with only several hours of sleep, I would not have reacted so. I wish your family the best, and understand how difficult it is to see someone you love suffer. Are we good now? These forums can get very nasty, that's why I normally try to stay off them.
I can't stand these "feel good about your slimebag politician sessions" that take place to rally the lemmings to the cliff. I watched none of the conventions because of this cacophany of lies and deflection that takes place in order to raise some measure of authenticity to the slimebag of the day. I did see an interview with all the Romney boys. It looked like a Brady Bunch reunion with so much syrupy wholesomeness I wanted a glass of milk and some cookies to wash it all down with. What? Are they going to talk about Bain Capital or Romney Care? You bet those is not a topics around that household
Michelle Obama will do the same thing for her husband so that the masses in that camp can feel good and automate to the voting booth just like all good lemmings wll do.
If they are not in it already for the money they soon will be. It is like a drug to them. They first have an idea and then are told they need to raise the money to get elected to fulfill that idea. After awhile it becomes all about the money and influence it provides until there is and exit stradegy that will afford them a confortable retirement for the rest of their lives. That is unless they get the power trip bug and then all bets are off.
Not everyone of them is a slimebag and some really try to invoke some change but the money corrupts far too many to hope any real good to be done in the current failed system. Take the money out and watch accountability arise.
My personal reactions seem to be 180 degrees away from the media's.
Guess that shouldn't surprise me.
Christie's speech was passionate and pragmatic. I liked that he talked about real things he was able to do in NJ. He looked like a leader up there.
Course, I'm a sucker for Jersey boys...
Was he supposed to be getting people excited for Romney or the party?
He did the latter but not the former.
Ann's speech seemed like torture to her. "I can't believe I'm up here having to do this" she seemed to wince. Many of her lines about women fell flat and even some of her family memories didn't quite "hit it."
Her nervous giggles added to the bizarre effect.
I could not stop staring at her false eyelashes!
But the speech gained momentum and she hit her stride.
You said it, though, Jean. She does not come across as wanting to be first lady.
And Mitt did seem surprised to find himself at a convention.
Gotta wonder if he's feeling over-handled and might even wish he could revert back to "old" (I almost wrote "real") Mitt and tell these right wing extremists to BTFO.
I've done some work on Romney's horoscope, and the kicker is that he has really good instincts. He should listen to them more. It's the crazies he's listening to that are hurting him. I also found that he is easily influenced, and needs to stand up for himself more. I thought Christie was great, and I don't really like him. But I respect and have seen evidence that he thinks for himself, and doesn't get swayed by other people, and you need that in a politician. He did get the party in a better mood, but I don't think it helped Mitt much. I wonder what Ryan will do tonight. It's like a train wreck, hard not to look.
In Britain, unless I've missed it, they haven't really shown much of the convention. Tonight, however, on Sky news they interviewed John Voight (Have I spelled that correctly?) the actor. And it was absolutely bizarre.
Sky news is a right leaning network, yet, when interviewed by a female broadcaster who asked " Why do you believe it is that R has been unable to generate much excitement (or words to that effect) amongst voters?" He came back with " Well, that's what all the left wing media say and they are not covering the convention properly, they're editing bits, Mitt Romney is fantastic, I know him and he's just what this country needs."
She then said "Mitt doesn't seem to be a hit with women, why do think that is? What can Mitt say now, that might change women's minds?"
He came back with " Liberals are propagandists, Obama has been taught by communists. You're a very pretty, young lady and I wish we could meet i n person." or words to that effect, I'm paraphrasing. However, it was cringe worthy TV. Even she was cringing.
At the end of it, I was left thinking are they really that dumb, old fashioned and chauvinistic, or is Mitt getting stitched up? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.
Christy is a fraud according to Paul Krugman:
" How so? Both [Ryan and Christie] have carefully cultivated public images as tough, fiscally responsible guys willing to make hard choices. And both public images are completely false.
"I’ve written a lot lately deconstructing the Ryan myth, so let me turn today to Mr. Christie.
'When Mr. Christie took office in January 2010, New Jersey — like many other states — was in dire fiscal straits thanks to the effects of a depressed economy. Unlike the federal government, states are required by their constitutions to run more or less balanced budgets every year (although there is room for accounting gimmicks), so like other governors, Mr. Christie was forced to engage in belt-tightening.
"So far so normal: while Mr. Christie has made a lot of noise about his tough budget choices, other governors have done much the same. Nor has he eschewed budget gimmicks: like earlier New Jersey governors, Mr. Christie has closed budget gaps in part by deferring required contributions to state pension funds, which is in effect a form of borrowing against the future, and he has also sought to paper over budget gaps by diverting money from places like the Transportation Trust Fund.
"If there is a distinctive feature to New Jersey’s belt-tightening under Mr. Christie, it is its curiously selective nature. The governor was willing to cancel the desperately needed project to build another rail tunnel linking the state to Manhattan, but has invested state funds in a megamall in the Meadowlands and a casino in Atlantic City...." More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opini … .html?_r=1
I thought Mrs. Romney gave a nice speech, but it somehow didn't seem genuine to me. It seemed she was trying very hard to cast herself and her husband as a struggling young married couple, just "regular folks", when we all know Mitt Romney was born into a well to do family. I do feel he is a man of good character where his family is concerned, but I don't really think he is in touch with the working class. As far as the role of women, I have to disagree. She mentioned that women work and then come home to help the kids with their homework, which is very true of many working mothers today, married or not. Mrs. Romney is just being a good wife right now by promoting her husband's image. It's up to voters to really examine what Mitt Romney's intentions are for the country. We vote for or against him, not his wife.
I thought Mrs. Romney gave a nice speech, but it somehow didn't seem genuine to me. It seemed she was trying very hard to cast herself and her husband as a struggling young married couple, just "regular folks", when we all know Mitt Romney was born into a well to do family. I do feel he is a man of good character where his family is concerned, but I don't really think he is in touch with the working class. As far as the role of women, I have to disagree. She mentioned that women work and then come home to help the kids with their homework, which is very true of many working mothers today, married or not. Mrs. Romney is just being a good wife right now by promoting her husband's image. It's up to voters to really examine what Mitt Romney's intentions are for the country. We vote for or against him, not his wife.
I used to be wayy into politics but I'm proud to say this time around I have taken no interest in the conventions or the campaigns in general. It's all dirty business anyway. The people who actually make the decisions behind the scenes are going to do what they want to regardless. That is, until we expose them and overthrow them, which should happen about five minutes after most of the country finally stops obsessing over sports and celebrities and crappyass reality tv.
Anne Romney reminded me of the Queen of Versailles, Jackie Siegel.
http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/Quee … vie-Review
She reminded me of Gordon Brown's wife just before he lost the general election. "I love my husband, and you should too."
That's a good one. Very true. Actually I think she's a decent person. However, TWO Cadillacs are a bit much. At least she doesn't have two Bentleys.
Ya never know what's lerking at the back of their garage.
What does it matter that she has two cadillacs? Honestly - at least it is a Chevrolet product and supports GM - isn't that what Obama wanted? Can't we just talk about the real issues.
Wow two Cadillacs big doings in the world. Since you're upset with the fact that they own two cars, how do you feel about the car collection Jay Leno has which by the way has four Bentleys.
The time is come for this baby nonsense to come to an end. When did it become horrible to be successful, what happened to wanting to be better than the previous generation? Here is a guy who has risked his own personal finances, created a successful company, and you hound him for it, treating him like he's an arch criminal for what he is done.
A few years back to Salt Lake City Olympics were in doubt. They were going off the fiscal cliff, scandal ridden, investigations were ensuing, criminal charges were imminent. A man resigned his post of a flourishing business to take charge. In doing so he not only saved the Olympics that year but the United States turned it around from a disaster to profitability. Seems to me that is somebody I want to charge.
It isn't that people envy the Romney's their success. Many feel their lifestyle is so different from the average American's lifestyle though, that it will make it hard for Gov. Romney to relate to the problems average and middle income people make. He's made several remarks that reflect this.The one where he seems puzzled that college grads can't just borrow money from their parents to start their own business is one. Most parents I know are struggling so hard they are giving up anything but neccessities in their lives to pay their children's way through college. Romney had a successful health care plan in MA, yet he's ignoring this success because it's too close to what President Obama proposed, and the R's want it overturned. Should a leader be that swayed by peer pressure? He seems to be a kind and generous person. But he did make much of his money as a corporate raider. I understand some companies or jobs need to be eliminated, but he seems so casual about taking food out of families mouths. It's that--I can't call it spirit--but sort of "It's all about me and my money" attitude, not about helping everyone achieve the level of success they are capable of reaching, or taking our country there.
"Wow two Cadillacs big doings in the world. Since you're upset with the fact that they own two cars, how do you feel about the car collection Jay Leno has which by the way has four Bentleys.
Thorstein Veblen called it "conspicuous consumption" in his "Theory of the Leisure Class."
Where I come from conspicuous consumption is frowned on. However, in the U.S. people are free to be as conspicuous as they wish, witness Donald Trump and billionaire David Siegel in "The Queen of Versailles" who set out to build the biggest house in America (92,000 sq. ft. and $100 million.) "because he could."
I've turned most of it off. Why not use the platform to actually say something of substance.. well, yeah, we know why.
I only watch the local news to see what's going on in the streets of Tampa. Glad to see the protesters protesting peacefully.
...i turned on one of my fav canadian news stations this a.m.....i swear it felt like i was living in the US somewhere...i checked the channel.....i thought butttt where's the cdn. content?....i didn't really want to watch M Romney's wife ....so, i turned the news off and quickly turned on my tunes...so much for the canadian news this a.m.....hope the news is better tomorrow!..
I liked most of her speech, although I felt that some lines were forced and artificial. As a former speech judge, I giver her a B. lol
Given the fact that she is not a speech expert, is actually a long time homemaker, and not in current speech class, I give her an A plus, and I think most Americans do as well. Certainly, Ms. Obama's few quite contained and politically directed speeches are no better, and no one seems to comment on whether she also requires a teleprompter . . . when it really counts - or is she smarter than President Obama? Or does she just spend more time working on speeches rather than playing golf, running around in a big bus, or playing basketball/hoops, or watching ESPN for hours on end to keep up with sports.......so he stays hip and in the know like lots of our husbands who live for espn at the expense of lots of other important issues - that is not what I want in a President of our country - sad.
I agree that Mrs. Romney is not an experienced speaker, so taking that into account, I think she did a pretty good job. What I want to hear from someone is the narrative about how Mitt closed down the offices to go to NYC and find a missing girl - his co-worker's daughter. Has someone already shared the story at the convention? Did I miss it?
I think the account would show people that Mitt does have compassion for others, and it would also show how he handles crises.
CI turned 50 this year, so I'm old enough to remember when American politics wasn't so thoroghly and depressingly divisive. I track it directly to the repeal of The Fairness Doctrine, which allowed for the creation of talk radio networks devoted entirely to the promotion of one political party and systematic demonization of anyone that would consider any policy of another party as having any validity or merit at all. Before repeal of The Fairness Doctrine, First Ladies were not called apes or murderers, and the market for wild, defamitory conspiracy theories was weak. People in Congress were allowed to give and take on legislation for the good of the country, and no one thought shouting "You Lie!" at the President of the United States in a joint session of Congress would make them a folk hero for their party and raise $2 million for their campaign in 48 hours. I don't think Democrats are blameless for this state of affairs, but I think it's clear that demonization of the other side is a strategy heavily employed (if not invented and trademarked) by the Republicans. It has mostly worked for them up until now. But I think the GOP has put themselves in a box demographically. This election is probably the last shot for Republicans if they keep hating on Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Scientists, Teachers, the poor, government employees, women, union members, studentveters, pending retirees, veterans, seniors, media, etc. For people who claim to be business geniuses, they certainly drive off a lot of potential customers.
I liked Susana Martinez's speech. Maybe Mitt should have chosen her as VP!
I feel certain Mrs. Romney's speech was written by one of the campaign's speechwriters, as few politicians (and certainly not their wives) write their own speeches, at least, not in entirety. There may be "ad libs", as I think Mrs. Romney inserted into her speech in attempt to make it more "homey" (a failure) and make herself more comfortable.
In my opinion (which this forum asked me to give), Mrs. Romney was condescending and insulting to an entire group of people (Latinos) while trying to solicit their votes. Telling them to lose their biases? Coming from a Republican? That's an extreme irony. The GOP needs Latino votes, especially in Florida, but I don't think she impressed or won the hearts (or votes) of many Latinos by referring to them as "you people." If it were you she addressed in that fashion, how would you feel?
Taking into account she's not a practiced public speaker I think Mrs.Romney did very well. I was most impressed (and surprised) by her recounting the days when she and her husband weren't mega-rich. It has convinced me, as nothing else has, that Mitt Romney knows something more about being an "average Joe" than he's previously been credited with - and I admit I was as guilty of misjudging him as the next person. As far as her talking about the wife and Mom experience from an old-fashioned perspective, I'm not one bit offended. I tend to think if all of today's mothers took mothering as seriously as they did back in the day we would have more responsible and caring children in general. But as it is too many women look to the likes of Dr. Phil and Snooki to tell them how to raise kids.
With this said, of all the speakers I found Condoleezza Rice to be the MOST impressive. That woman is a commanding speaker, a class act and sincere. The WH and the American people would be benefited having her aboard in any administration..or as commander-in-chief.
Condolezza helped bring on Bush's foolish, costly invasion of Iraq based on false pretenses wrt wmd and what has turned out to be an endless war in Afghanistan. She's not stupid, but I question her judgment. (Of course she had plenty of company including Hillary Clinton, however, my Senator, Carl Levin, had the foresight, wisdom and good judgment to vote against the Iraq invasion.) Also, she passed up every opportunity to participate in the civil rights revolution.
Ann Romney was just as nervous and skitzy as Mitt is. They know 90% of the people know they have cheated their way through this entire season. It is so sad that this is what the Repubs have had to resort to.
The nwo wants us to think there are distinct differences between the two geeks running for president. There aren't. it's just a facade. They both work for the banks and big business. Romney is a cheater and a serial liar. Obama is a communist. I am considering voting for a third party. wtf
I think many people would love it if we had a viable third party. Countries in Europe have several parties and they all get votes. The problem with having only two, is that no matter what some say, our Democratic party is moderate, and our Republican party are like the Pilgrims who got kicked out of England because they were so ridiculously self righteous. The U.S. has no liberal party.
Obviously, that's what it was meant to do, to persuade you that MR is an average Joe. He's not, and a speech by an ultra wealthy wife trying to connect with the average Joe's out there doesn't work, or her now famous line about buying his shirts at Costco. Please.
rebekahelle---I actually disagree with you. The Romneys made their own money. I am ok with that. I am not ok with his cheating and rigging himself to being the nominee. He is not the legitimate nominee of the party. It is unimportant who is, but he is not.
History will show he rigged in all 50 states. The best example is in Arizona. The computer was rigged to give the votes for others to Romney. How did I come up with this? His OWN SUPPORTER would not certify the vote count. His own supporter said the programmer programmed the computers to go for Romney.
This is all well-documented for anyone who cares to look it up.
I might have voted for Romney at one point, but no more. And there are literally miliions like me. He will lose to Obama.
Susan Martinez was a compelling speaker. Condoleeza Rice did a decent job, at least discussing substantive issues in foreign policy, and the history of America as a nation of immigrants.
Paul Ryan is a good speaker, and definitely a hottie!!
But he is a liar. Lied about the plant that closed - not under Obama, as he said, but in Dec 08, under Bush. He lied, or at least isn't telling the whole truth, about the $716 in medicare "cuts" - a), the same cuts are in his own budget, except that Obama takes the money from insurers' profits, and uses it to provide additional benefits (free preventive care, lower prescription costs) to medicare recipients. Ryan's plan, on the other hand, cuts benefits by making Medicare into a no-value-added "coupon" program, and uses the $700 billion "savings" to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
What Ryan also does not say is that "Obamacare", i.e. the Affordable Care Act, was modeled exactly on Romneycare in Massachusetts, which the people in Massachusetts are very happy with - you would be, too, if your medical costs went down and the health outcomes for your state went up.
And finally, he lied, as most Republicans continue to lie, about the supposed end of work requirements for welfare. I refer anyone who cares to research the truth to nonpartisan sites such as factcheck.org, or politifact.com.
The lie I'm getting really sick of is the one where Obama's large statement about how one never builds anything without the help of superiors, family, infrastructure, educators, mentors, etc. is being taken completely out of context. It was a rather long statement, and every R that gets up there says, "Who says we didn't build it!" to crazy applause. Hitler said it best, make the lie simple, and keep repeating it, until they believe it. It makes the Republicans look stupid, when I'm sure many know they are lying. Even Huckabee, a member of clergy, shocked me with his lies last night. Paul Ryan lied about almost everything, he signed for the stimulus. There's no way Obama should have let the auto industry fail. Unions matter. Sure, there a bad teachers, but without unions we would have child labor, no lunch or coffee breaks, no paid vacation, and less of many things. Unions protect the workers. And Teachers need Unions. My son is a teacher, and they do a hell of a lot more than teach. They do the jobs of absentee parents, they have to be role models when their are none. They have to be at school by 7:30, and don't leave until 4, as in every job, and stay for the weekly staff meeting. In the evenings they mark papers and make lesson plans. All for a salary of about $45,000 a yr. as a beginning teacher in NJ. It's not the 9-3 job people say it is. Bush's No Child Left Behind left us with a generation of HS graduates who can't read. If you can't read, you can't learn. I wonder how MItt and Ann would do living on $45,000 a year. That red dress she wore the other night cost more than $45,000. Sorry to rant, but it's disgusting how this election is so rigged and twisted. We heard it said how happy the R's were when they make it so hard for college kids and the elderly to vote, since they often vote D. College campuses don't encourage the students to have cars until senior year, and old people who don't have a photo DL probably don't have a photo ID. Since 9/11, our original BC's aren't even OK to use, we had to get new ones with a raised stamp. An older person with health issues can't wait on line for hours to get an ID like that. Obama may have got more than he bargained for, but I don't think he's a blatant liar. And at least not a religious blatant liar, even worse.
Envious much? Because that is what you sound like in your petulant rant. We've all read the entire speech. We all know what the President said. His speech was about "giving back" because "you didn't build that". It was about the Government being deserving of your success. You do realize that everyone of US, the people, have already paid for our usage of any infrastructure. We do so with taxes. Income taxes, both Federal and State, plus VAT on gas. So how could we owe something back to the Government for something we've paid for in the first place? As for Ann Romney's dress, how do you know what it cost? And what does it matter? Who do you think is funding the First Lady's wardrobe? Those garments certainly aren't cheap. And let's not forget about all those vacations. Who do you think is footing that bill? You can get a copy of your BC for less than $10, certified. You can't even obtain a student ID without some other form of ID so any student would already have any ID required. The only ones disenfranchised by any voter ID law is those who have no legal right to vote or who are voting outside their district and more than once.
Apparently you didn't read it, because that's not what was said. You can get the Photo ID for $10, but not if you are elderly, don't drive, and can't get to the voting district. Same for college students. They may not have public transportation to a voting place, if they live on campus. Why would anyone be jealous of a cartoon man who wants to put our country back into the 1950's? He sounded like he also wanted to revive the Cold War. The R's want to bomb Iran too, like we don't have enough wars. I'm not petulant, I'm sick of liars, and wars the U.S. people DO NOT SUPPORT. The President said you had support from your loved ones, and many other people, in order to achieve what you have in your life. There are different versions depending on where he spoke, but yours is from Mars. And George Bush took more vacation time than any President on record, and also now says himself he wished he didn't say some things "that made him sound like a cowboy." The First Lady is expected to dress well, she is a representative of our country. When Ann Romney shows up on a morning talk show wearing a $1,000.00 T-shirt, it doesn't make her look like the "average American woman" she is trying to emulate.
Actually, in comparing the Presidents' vacations, Obama & Bush are on equal footing. However, the First Lady has taken more vacations than any other. You can go to youtube. My version is EXACTLY what he said. As for jealousy, I was referring to you rant regarding the dress. "the First Lady is expected to dress well". Oh but Ann Romney is not? Do you even listen to yourself? You are so biased and judgmental but only of anyone who disagrees with your cockeyed view of things. What war are you referring to? Why are you even talking about Bush? Last time I checked he wasn't running. I'm pretty sick of the Bush bashing and all the left propaganda and lies. There was no talk of war. But I guess you think Israel should be hung out to dry because Iran is breaking the rules? Yeah that is logical. Let's turn our back on our ally in the region so the country who hates us can obtain nuclear weapons. That's completely logical. The IDs are being offered for FREE. You can obtain your BC IN THE MAIL OR EVEN ON THE INTERNET. What does them having ID have to do with them getting to a voting place? If they can arrange to get to a place to vote, they can arrange to hit up their local DMV and get a photo done. Here they are set up in the nursing homes and senior centers so I don't even want to hear how anyone is disenfranchised. It's BS.
And for you information, he gave the speech once. Once.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
This is the second paragraph of the speech where the comment is contained. The speech begins with "There are a lot of people out there that agree with me. They want to give something back." Who exactly are they supposed to "give back" to?
Keep defending the lies and justifying the stupidity that is promulgated by the highest levels of the GOP. The more you do it, the more disgusted moderates and rational Republicans become.
I guess it's kind of like an addict, the GOP is going to have to hit rock bottom before they're willing to do the soul-searching required for them to become a relevant party again. Too bad so many citizens are dragging out the process by believing the lies, or worse, defending them even when they know they're lying.
The GOP's voter I.D. drive which has been orchestrated by ALEC and other right-wing groups is obvious to any any fair-minded person an effort to suppress likely Democratic voters. There is no demonstrable voter impersonation problem which would justify a photo I.D. or proof of citizenship requirement. Further, several states such as Ohio are reducing opportunities to register and vote early, on weekends or other measures which have previously been adopted in order to encourage voter participation.
Your claims are preposterous. Early voting in most states is reserved for military servicemen. That is just how it is. There were few that allowed it for anyone else. Further, are you trying to say that only Democrats took advantage of that early voting? Ridiculous. Just as with the ID requirement. Are you trying to claim there are no poor Republicans? No elderly Republicans? Hardly. Your claims do not hold water at all. No sane person would be against ensuring that one of our most basic rights is not abused, by anyone. I don't care if it has been once in the last 50 years. There is only one reason to be against it, and that is if you feel that your Party is benefiting in some fashion from people voting who should not be doing so.
And your claims are erroneous. You need to read up on the subject. Either you are uniformed or simply partisan. Everyone agrees that the GOP voter suppression legislation targets individuals who are much more likely to vote for Democrat candidates--minorities, the elderly and infirm, students, the disabled and others.
http://www.minnpost.com/community-voice … oter-fraud
The myth of voter fraud
Share on printShare on email
By David Schultz | 02/09/09
Courtesy of Hamline University
"Claims of voter fraud in Minnesota are greatly exaggerated. Minnesota Reps. Mary Kiffmeyer and Tom Emmer have introduced legislation calling for photo identification in order to address voter fraud. They assert that alleged voter fraud in the state can only be cured by photo IDs. Yet what evidence exists that voter fraud is rampant?
"Last year — in two articles of mine in the Harvard Law and Policy Review and William Mitchell Law Review — I investigated all the credible studies examining voter fraud. The conclusion? There is no evidence that voter fraud is a problem that has affected any recent elections, including in Minnesota...."
Editor’s note: This report is part of a project on voting rights in America produced by the Carnegie-Knight News21 program.
A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity, including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation.
Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.
In Minnesota, there have been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation reported since 2000.
“Voter fraud at the polls is an insignificant aspect of American elections,” said elections expert David Schultz, professor of public policy at Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul.
Courtesy of Hamline University
“There is absolutely no evidence that [voter impersonation fraud] has affected the outcome of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United States,” Schultz said.
What we found
The News21 analysis of its election fraud database shows:
In-person voter-impersonation fraud is rare. The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.
“The fraud that matters is the fraud that is organized. That's why voter impersonation is practically non-existent because it is difficult to do and it is difficult to pull people into conspiracies to do it,” said Lorraine Minnite, professor of public policy and administration at Rutgers University.
There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases.
“The one issue I think is potentially important, though more or less ignored, is the overuse of absentee balloting, which provides far more opportunity for fraud and intimidation than on-site voter fraud,” said Daniel Lowenstein, a UCLA School of Law professor.
Of reported election-fraud allegations in which a resolution could be determined, 46 percent resulted in acquittals, dropped charges or decisions not to bring charges.
Minnite says prosecutions are rare. “You have to be able to show that people knew what they were doing and they knew it was wrong and they did it anyway,” she said. “It may be in the end they [prosecutors] can't really show that the people who have cast technically illegal ballots did it on purpose.”
Felons or noncitizens sometimes register to vote or cast votes because they are confused about their eligibility. The database shows 74 cases of felons voting and 56 cases of noncitizens voting.
Voters make a lot of mistakes, from accidentally voting twice to voting in the wrong precinct.
Election officials make a lot mistakes, from clerical errors — giving voters ballots when they’ve already voted — to election workers confused about voters’ eligibility requirements.
“I don't think there is a mature democracy that has as bad of an elections system as we do,” said Richard Hasen, a professor of political science and election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. “We have thousands of electoral jurisdictions, we have non-professionals running our elections, we have partisans running our elections, we have lack of uniformity.”
Voter-impersonation fraud has attracted intense attention in recent years as conservatives and Republicans argue that strict voter ID laws are needed to prevent widespread fraud.
Little voter fraud
The case has been made repeatedly by the Republican National Lawyers Association, one of whose missions is to advance “open, fair and honest elections.” It has compiled a list of 375 election fraud cases, based mostly on news reports of alleged fraud.
News21 examined the RNLA cases in the database and found only 77 were alleged fraud by voters. Of those, News21 could verify convictions or guilty pleas in only 33 cases. The database shows no RNLA cases of voter-impersonation fraud.
Civil-rights and voting-rights activists condemn the ID laws as a way of disenfranchising minorities, students, senior citizens and the disabled.
http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy … n-existent
I believe I already stated it should not and does not matter whether it is rampant or not. I do not need to "read up on the subject". Perhaps you should. How can a Law that requires the same of every citizen "target" anyone? It is absurd. Which is why all the opponents of a most reasonable requirement to keep elections free from fraud going forward can only keep on trotting out the same old rhetoric from the past. But it hasn't happened on any large scale! So what? I haven't been robbed yet in my life, does that mean I shouldn't lock my door? As for people "claiming" it disenfranchises anyone....out of their "claim" of over 700,000 being so disenfranchised, they could only find 9. And they lost their attempt to stop it here. What is most disingenuous though is that the Supreme Court has already ruled these Laws constitutional in 2005 in Crawford v Marion County.
@Jean That is an entirely different matter and should definitely be dealt with accordingly. As for the BC, no you don't. Perhaps you are thinking of an replacement SS card. You can order your BC online very easily. From all 50 states. Some states the Assistance Office can get one for you for free if you were born in that state.As for biased and judgemental, ah but you are. To say "the First Lady has to dress nice" and then blast Ann Romney for dressing nice is indeed biased. Especially when you were blasting the cost of the clothing and one WE paid for and the other paid for it herself. There is no rigging. You'd have to understand the make-up of PA and how the Democrats already redistricted everything to take over the farming counties. It was merely putting it back the way it had been before it was rigged to discount any votes from mostly rural counties, who just so happen to be predominately Republican. I'm not advocating that there is this widespread voter fraud, only that there is no reason we should be against a Law that makes it more difficult to commit such fraud. In my opinion that is ridiculous. I find it much more disturbing that the Obama Campaign is making request for "certain" voting polls to remain open late, open early in all the states. That Holder insisted all charges be dropped against the Black Panthers who intimidated white voters in Philly in 2008. And the case that you state of people actually being told they cannot vote. THOSE are actual cases of violating someone's right to vote. Not requiring an ID that we need to drive, to receive benefits, to cash a check, even to work.
The fact is the GOP sponsored voter I.D. and other restrictions on voting are have only one purpose--discouraging likely Democratic voters. Pennsylvania Republican Mike Turzai let the cat out of the bag:
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.
“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.
“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
Federal Judge in Ohio Restores Early Voting
By RAY RIVERA
A federal judge in Ohio on Friday ordered the state to give all voters the right to cast their ballots in person on the final three days before Election Day.
The ruling was a victory for state Democrats and President Obama’s campaign in a swing state and was the latest salvo in the contentious battle over the state’s early voting laws before the Nov. 6 election.
The state Democratic Party and the Obama campaign had sued the state over the constitutionality of a law that ended early in-person voting on the Friday evening before the election to all but voters serving in the military or living overseas.
The judge, Peter C. Economus of Federal District Court in Columbus, issued a preliminary injunction against the law, saying that in making an exception for some, the law unconstitutionally valued some voters over others.
Judge Economus also cited statistical studies presented by Democrats showing that low-income and minority voters would be disproportionately affected by the elimination of the voting days.
In his ruling, the judge roundly rejected the state’s arguments that restoring the final three days would make it difficult for county election boards to prepare for Election Day and would make it difficult for military voters to cast their ballots early.
The Ohio attorney general, Mike DeWine, above, announced that he would appeal the decision.
Ohio opened early balloting to all voters — one of 32 states to do so — after the 2004 election debacle that left thousands of state residents stranded in long lines unable to cast their ballots before the polls closed.
Democrats estimated in their lawsuit that 93,000 people voted early in the final three days of the 2008 election. At least one study Democrats presented in their lawsuit showed that early voters tended to favor Democrats.
"I believe I already stated it should not and does not matter whether it is rampant or not."
Susie, are you a fiscal conservative? Do you run your household by spending large sums of money to "prevent" a problem that almost never occurs? Do you advocate governments spending large sums of money to prevent statistically insignificant fraud while cutting funding for programs that objective analysis has shown saves taxpayers money?
I live in NJ, and in some Hispanic and black neighborhoods, when the people get to the polls, they have been told "their district voting day is tomorrow." So don't tell me people of color are not being excluded and their votes are not getting blocked. I don't know how you can possibly get a BC on the internet legally, you have to do it in person in my state to prove who you are. I work with birth information, and a person has to go to a government office and show up with a photo ID to get a photo ID in NJ, which is ridiculous and roundabout. And also there is a point system, where other documentation is necessary to prove who you are. If you don't think the R's have bent over backwards to squash Democratic voters who are elderly, young and non white, you are living in a dream world. I don't begrudge anyone in the White House vacation time, but the Obamas do have younger children than anyone else has since JFK was the President. I don't know the man whose speech keeps playing, but he is in a large hall, counting "Republican successes" and crowing about how they managed to redistrict and rig PA so that Romney could win. I am not being biased or judgemental. I'm stating the truth you don't want to see.
Look what happened in Florida:
Court tosses Fla. voter registration rule
Not to mention - we have to present ID to buy Sudafed, for entering a drinking establishment, to buy cigarettes (No I don't smoke), to visit your child's school - but NOT to vote........
I can't remember the last time I was asked for I.D. in a 'drinking establishment' or for any other purpose other than boarding an airplane. Yet, if I were in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania I would have to provide a photo I.D. in order to vote, even if I'd voted there 40 times in previous years and lived two blocks from the poll. Not sure what I'd do if I'd lost my driver's license, or if I didn't have one. Voter fraud claims are a crock of you-know-what. Any doubts by the people manning the poll can be easily resolved by producing a recent bank statement, utility or rent bill showing that I live at the address on the list of registered voters.
If you lost your drivers license I am certain you would go and get a replacement as most law abiding citizens would. Are you insunating that the elserly or immigrants are not law abiding and capable just as you are.
No, Ralph Deeds did not insinuate that--YOU did! Just another shot at the elderly and immigrants. (By the way, is your SpellCheck on the blink?)
I am sure Ralph is capable of defending his own statements. Is that all you got Jaye - spell check...... I am just positive you have never misspelled anything in your writing history - NOT.
I never use Spell Check because I never need it. I am an excellent speller. Of course, I wouldn't brag about my advanced math skills. Those I DON'T have, so if you're great at math, you're ahead of me there.
I'm fortunate that I have excellent spelling skills, CL, so I never need Spell Check. Of course, I can't claim to be a whiz in advanced math! We all have our strengths, and we all have our limitations. The wise person recognizes both.
You make it sound like you can just waltz into your local DMV and voila -- instant driver's license.
In point of fact, you have to pass a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a driver's license.
Not everyone needs or even wants a driver's license. They don't drive. They might live in cities and take public transporation.
Not to mention elderly may not be able to renew their license.
Getting a passport takes several weeks and costs a lot of money.
How is this right or fair? To demand that American citizens who have been registered voters for years suddenly have to jump through impossible hoops and pay money to get a government issued ID.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE???
I never show id for drinking, buying cigarettes, or even visiting my grandkids schools. And I agree with Ralph Deeds, voter fraud claims are a crock. Nothing more then a Republican ploy to shift a win in the Romney column. Obviously the Romney Team doesn't feel they can win on merit, ONLY by CHEATING.
Ah but you see, that is what the left Hubberites do around here. Change the conversation. It was not a comparison of one to the other. Your claim was why spend money on something that happens only in small numbers. That was the comparison. I might add that there are claims of voter fraud all around the country. Isn't that what the Democrats keep on claiming about Florida in 2000? Just because something cannot be proven, really does not mean it isn't happening. A co-worker of mine steals things from work. There are no cameras, I haven't seen her do it, she told me about it. I have no proof do I? But it IS indeed occurring. If you were really so very concerned with anyone's right to vote being hindered, you would have lit up these boards when the Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philly. Or spewing long speeches about the Obama Campaign making request in every swing state that "certain" polling stations open early or remain open late. Only in districts that support them of course. We don't hear about that do we though? No, of course not. Because it isn't about people actually being disenfranchised or their right to vote being hindered or a certain group getting receiving an unfair advantage. It is because, in the back of their minds, they are worried that they are indeed getting some benefit from those voting illegally. We have DEAD people on the voting rolls who actually voted in 2008. Isn't that nice. Voting registration lists exceed the population of those of voting age in many districts around the country. Hmmm...isn't that interesting. Yeah, there is no voter fraud at all. It does exist. Now, no, it most likely has not had a large effect on anything. I'm happy you are fine if an illegally cast ballot cancels yours out. I am not.
I was only referring to voter fraud. You brought health care into it, which is an infinitely more complex subject and completely unrelated, so don't accuse me of changing the conversation. My sarcasm was my way of refusing to even engage in your comparison.
The 2000 election issue was a systemic one having absolutely nothing to do with individual voter fraud, which is the only type of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to address and which has been proven to be statistically miniscule.
If you want to continue to advocate government spending money on such a miniscule problem, then you cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative.
I spend money on security even though I've never been robbed. Where I live robbery is pretty rare as well. You've still provided no proof of these "large sums of money" either. Nor that something was cut because of those expenditures. It is like ignoring a cavity and spending that amount to get it filled and waiting until it is infected, impacted and rotten and costs twice as much in money and trouble to make right. Naturally you won't engage the comparison. I also noticed you've completely ignored the rest of the post as well.
I might add that it really does not have to inflict this large scale effect. It only needs to have a small effect throughout the country to affect the outcome.
I didn't engage your entire post because you are all over the map and I try to stay on topic.
As for your cavity example, the only way it is a relevant point is if you can show, with statistical evidence, that the type of voter fraud designed to be prevented by voter ID laws has been growing. Can you show that?
Not every little cavity, even if left untreated becomes infected etc. There is the reasonable assumption that it will. Just as there is a reasonable assumption that any crime left unregulated will. It really isn't rocket science. The longer people get away with something, the more people are going to engage in it. Like I said, it does not even need to be this large scale omg blow up. Just a small percentage within each state throughout the country, in a close election, affects the outcome.
So the answer is no? Obviously, our methods for using logic to make decisions about spending money, especially government money, are not the same. I choose to use evidence, you choose to use "reasonable assumptions" based on. . . . what?
There is no point in continuing the discussion. I hope you are not in a position of authority making decisions about how to spend taxpayer money.
Decisions are made on reasonable assumptions every day. If you do not lock your door it is reasonable to assume someone may come in and rob you. If you leave your keys in your car, it is reasonable to assume someone may come and steal it. You can take your pompous crap elsewhere. I hope you are not in a position of any authority that decides whether we need laws regarding crime. Obviously since we have not had a robbery here in this small town in 20 years, we don't need laws about it. We should not be taking any measures like having policemen when statistically speaking, we have such very little crime. And we can't even show any statistical evidence that it is growing or anything. It is an absurd position. And I still have not seen you make any effort to research or speak out about the requests for early and late times only at "certain" polling places. If this was the DNC making these laws you'd be on here rah rahing for them. Oh and just for clarification, the DNC did indeed attempt to claim voter fraud in Florida in 2000 (among other things to be sure). To the point that three different agencies investigated those claims. They found that there was indeed voter fraud. Felons voting, out of district voting and more than once, dead people voting. 90% of them voted for Al Gore.
Reasonable assumptions used to spend taxpayer money should be based upon something real. Your examples are silly and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. We already have laws against voter fraud. You are wanting to enact additional ones when the problem is so tiny as to be statistically nonexistent. That is a waste of time and money, but hey, you're a fiscal conservative, right?
So all this taxpayer money being spent by this Administration for lawsuits regarding the voter ID law, which there is no real proof that anyone is disenfranchised should be on your target list. They only have assumptions as the basis for their claims of anyone being disenfranchised. The money being spent to change the early voting law in Ohio, no real proof there either. Especially considering most states only allow for early voting for members of the military. That is a waste of time and money. You keep on talking about this waste of money but have provided no proof there is even all this money being spent to initiate such laws. The estimated cost in PA is $5 million by an independent study and goes as high as $21 million by statements from the opponents of the law. My best guess would be somewhere in-between is the actual truth. There is not this great burdensome cost. Also what has gotten lost in everything is that over 70% of Americans favor the Law. I might add that if you plan to attend the DNC Convention, you'd better have your photo-ID ready. You can't get in without one. But they're happy to allow you to vote without one.
What I'm trying to show you is that the push for Voter ID laws is not because there is widespread voter fraud. So, if voter fraud is statistically insignificant why do you suppose Republicans, the party of fiscal conservatism and small government, are pushing for additional laws and more government bureaucracy, the very things they say they oppose?
I don't know that it really creates more government bureaucracy. It doesn't create any additional government positions nor departments. What I'm trying to show you is that there are significant complaints of voter fraud all across the country. You are of the opinion that just because something cannot be proven without a shadow of a doubt, it doesn't exist. It may not matter to you or I if a mayor in some hinky dink town is elected because of voter fraud, but it matters to the people of that town. To you this constitutes something minimal. To the people of that town, it is something major. Even a small amount of voter fraud can have huge implications. It can affect the outcome of Governors, Senators and Representatives. Do you really think that this came out of the air somewhere? No it did not. It has a minimal cost to the taxpayer and hinders greatly most types of voter fraud. I'd be behind it if the Democrats came up with it because there simply is no reason to oppose it. I want my vote to count. I want there to be the smallest fraction of a possibility that it was negated by fraud.
Like I said, laws against voter fraud already exist. Studies--you know, those things people do when they want to rely on facts--have shown that voter fraud preventable by additional voter ID laws is about 0.00004% (or is it 0.0004%?) of total votes. Why are you so worried?
She's not worried about voter fraud. She's worried about losing the election!
You seem to have this idea that Voter ID laws are a new thing. They are not. As I stated the Supreme Court has already ruled them Constitutional in 2005. The first such law was passed in 2003. There are 30 states that require ID now. The GOP is only involved because Holder got involved. Many states have had them for years but suddenly the Administration is concerned. Suddenly, they want to flex their Federal muscles? They certainly weren't concerned about all these supposedly disenfranchised people in the mid-term elections.Nor in any year prior to that were they? Hmmm...so I wonder Ralph, just WHO is it that is concerned about losing the election? And why is it that not requiring ID will help them? It didn't seem to be an issue to them in 2008 or any year since then.
Charles Blow says GOP convention a "fact vacuum."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/opini … ef=opinion
"Sally Kohn, a contributor to Fox News, said:
“Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.”
"Business Insider called it “factually shaky.” A Washington Post blog called it a “breathtakingly dishonest speech.” Salon’s Joan Walsh said the speech was “stunning for its dishonesty” and contained “brazen lies.” Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic used the headline: “The Most Dishonest Convention Speech ... Ever?” You get the picture...."
Not for the GOP. It was full of "facts." Republicans have created their own media universe to repeat these "facts" until the quotes disappear. They have repeated over and over again that anyone that challenges them on their "facts" is part of a liberal media conspiracy, and not to be believed. They have developed their own media universe-- Fox News, Newsmax.com, talk radio, the conservative blogosphere, etc.-- that are now their only trustworthy media outlets. So when Rudy Giuliani says "not every fact in a convention speech is necessarily accurate," he is using the word "fact" without the quotes. So your limited definition of a "fact" is therefore not germaine to the conversation, and makes you part of a massive liberal coverup dedicated to destroying America.
I hope that clears things up.
The "fact here is", previous administration deregulation and tax breaks, got us into this mess. And what is Romneys answer? More of the same and by some miracle, trickle down economics will be the big fix.
It's a very clear picture, Ralph. A lie is a lie is a lie, and that appears to be Ryan's M.O.
Maybe, somebody on the left should take an hour or so and read the CBO report on the Paul Ryan budget. Here's one quote and I will leave the link for you to read the rest. If you take the time to honestly read the entire deal, you will find out who's really telling you the truth and it is not the Democrats.
"The budget would be in surplus by 2040 and show growing surpluses in the following decade."
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … letter.pdf
The main quesion should be...why was this started in an election year and not between elections? Why the hurry? All of a sudden there is so much voter fraud? The federal government is responding to those states who brought in those laws now.
And those of us who still have a long-term memory remember Obama could have passed any law he wished but he was too eager to try and get bi-partisan support. And most of the Democrats in Congress negotiated with the president from 2006-2008.
But, I'm not American so I guess I don't have an opinion on this We don't need photo ID to vote and voter fraud is as negligible as it is in the US. I don't know if you get voter cards mailed to you telling you where you vote but we do and have to bring that with us, the only other ID necessary is only proof of residency. Just as well because I don't drive and currently have no photo ID but my health card which is not accepted by most places as proper ID. There is an ID card I can go buy for $40 which I will be doing soon because the post office demands photo ID when you pick up packages
It wasn't started in an election year, which is the point. So the real question is, why is the DNC so very concerned now? Most of these laws have been on the books for years. Over 30 states have them. But, isn't it interesting, that the WH isn't concerned with anyone being disenfranchised in most states, only certain states. The point is the issue has already been brought before the Supreme Court in 2005 and ruled Constitutional.
Actually, he wasn't worried about bi-partisan support. He was worried about shoving through a Health Care Law that received not a single GOP vote. But he was worried about bi-partisan support? He cut the GOP out of the Health Care debate entirely and would not compromise nor implement anything at all the GOP suggested. Many Dems did not want to vote for it either but they were bullied into it by Reid and Pelosi. Many lost their jobs for it at mid-terms as well because the PEOPLE did not and do not want it.
Because the Republican's were not so adamant before. Why only when the opposition is in power?
He cut them out after they refused to compromise on anything... as it was he passed a plan that was not what he, and those who voted for him, wanted.
That's just a false statement. It seems that at least here on these forums the word "compromise" has been re-defined to mean "do what we want and we'll offer you nothing". They did not even consider anything the GOP offered at all nor make any concessions. He made one compromise and it was not to the GOP but his own Party and that was to remove the public option. At the time of passage, 80% of the people, you know, the ones who vote, did not want the Health Care Law. That vote is what cost the Democrats the House majority. When you say the people who voted for him, you are only referring to the hard left not the majority.
I remember it from the media... the Canadian media...who have nothing to gain by lying, unlike some US Media outlets.
Obama said from the outset that he was going to being in health care, that it would be his top priority. How did he get elected if 80% were against it?
It's not that Americans were against healthcare, what they were against was his policy. Obama did campaign that he would be doing healthcare as a top priority as have prior presidents as well. The thing is nobody will agree on how to do it, both sides will not sit down to discuss it or get any input from the medical community. So Obama care was done behind closed doors with no input from anybody, they try to pass it instantly without the Bill even being reviewed or debated. That is the biggest reason Obama care is a failure. There are some good things Obama care, there are some horrible things Obama care, but without sitting down discussing it is working on a better solution people will always be against
They were not against healthcare reform. They were against the manner in which this Law goes about it (which is not really reform but tax and penalize) and the manner in which it was handled as well. They are against the Government deciding what they should or should not have to buy and then taxing them for it as well. People are not for "most" things in the Law, we've already discussed that topic. They are in favor of the preexisting condition clauses and staying on parents insurance until aged 26. That is not "most".
"People" have been sold a steady stream of lies about Obamacare which reduces a sweeping reform law down to something they can rally against. For while it was the personal mandate ("No one can take my freedom! No one can MAKE me buy insurance, dammit!!") and now that the Supreme Court has ruled, that's been revised and it's being promoted as a "tax." Along with the notion that Obama is funding ACA by raiding Medicare. Freedom and tax -- what better words to get people upset about something that probably won't even affect them personally.
"People" don't even know or pay attention to the actual REFORM on the care delivery side that the ACA provides.
It's not that it's not there. It's not that it's not important. It's critical to improving quality of care and access to care and affordability of care.
In other words, there's a whole other side to the ACA equation the public hasn't heard about.
If you have read the legislation and are up on all this, then you are the exception.
But the Koch machine isn't propagandizing about it. It's irrelevant to their agenda.
So people don't know enough to rail against it because they haven't been brainwashed to hate it.
I've actually read the entire Law. It took a while and there was aside researching done because there were changes to the original Law since it was passed. It is mostly penalties for businesses that do not comply. He is not raiding Medicare exactly but he is lying about that $716 billion. On the one hand, he says it is "savings" and counts it for his "projected" spending cuts. On the other hand, he is using those "projected" savings to fund ObamaCare. You can't use it twice and the savings are not "real" savings, only projected ones that so far have not proven true. If you think this "savings" isn't going to affect Medicare, you're wrong. It will drive the cost up of Part B coverages for seniors. Not only that, it is ridiculous to assume that cuts to providers is not going to affect seniors. 15% of hospitals will be forced to close. Doctors will either be forced out of practice or simply stop accepting new Medicare patients. Some already have. Their access to care will be greatly reduced. And while they are not the death panels that Palin called them, the Independent Counsel that is set up will decide what to cut, when to cut and how much. An unelected panel. They can only be removed for gross negligence of duty. Virtually impossible. Their decisions do not have to go through Congress at all. Congress does have the power not to enact their recommendations but if Congress does not act, and quickly I might add, then the recommendations automatically take affect. It IS a tax. It was ruled a tax and is being collected by the IRS. What else do you think it is? I know there are some tax breaks in there for those within the middle but guess what? If I can't afford the monthly output for health insurance (which most middle class people will not be able to ) then a tax break at the end of the year does not help me. It has very little to do with affordability and quality of care.
Wrong. It has as much to do with access and quality of care as it does extending insurance coverage to more Americans. It's about all three.
But speaking of affordability, if the choice between paying $600 for the tax to stubbornly stay uninsured under Obama vs. paying an additional $2,000 in taxes under Romney.... I think the choice is pretty clear.
I am not looking to get into a debate or argument, I promise. Can you show me anywhere other than a blogger or Democratic talking point about the additional $2000 a year in taxes under Romney. When it was first discussed it was $6000 a year and the number has slowly come down to $2000 a year.. I'm just curious where the Democrats are coming up with this number
First, there are elections here every year, some years are bigger than others. The Democrats who oppose voter ID cards want you to believe that this just happened yesterday and the GOP is trying to fool you. Voter fraud is an issue that has gone back decades, and while voter fraud is negligible, it can change an election. Decades back there really was not that big of a deal, was quite difficult to swing an election. Presidential election of 2000 shows just how important a single vote is. The senator from Minnesota has his job after three recounts, margin of victory, 12 votes. Because these elections have gotten much closer, voter fraud is becoming a more important topic.
As for your statement that most Democrats negotiated with the president between 2006 and 2008, not even close. Once Pelosi and Reid got control of the House and Senate, everything came to a screeching halt. Everything that is except all the money they spent.
The real "voter fraud" took place with the help of a presidential candidate's governor brother and a Republican-biased Supreme Court in 2000 when the presidential election was stolen from Al Gore. Read Johnathan Chait's June 2012 account in NY Magazine for the proof.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/ye … ction.html
No they failed. But the Democrats tried very hard. The votes were counted and re-counted and each time the Democrats wanted to discount more and more votes. Even to the point of not counting overseas military ballots. They then tried to claim voter fraud in Miami-Dade. Three separate agencies investigated such fraud. They found there was indeed voter fraud. Felons voting, people voting multiple times out of district, dead people voting. In 90% of those cases, the fraudulent votes were cast for Democrats.
I thought that they continued to pose and posture without saying anything of merit. Aside from being caught in lie after lie, they failed miserably when it came to laying out a viable plan for restoring our nation to a point where it will survive.
Clint Eastwood's bizarre speech, Ryan's self serving speech and the other speeches created the question: if the Republicans can't run a convention, who is foolish enough to trust them to run this nation?
This is because the Republican Party and, to some extent, the Democratic Party have sold out to the corporations and to the one percent of the global population who have stolen or taken the nation's wealth. They have no plan and they have no message. It is almost as if they are just in a holding pattern, waiting for the apocalypse to happen.
@Xenon You've taken the bait well. Successful people are evil!!!! Better start checking those incomes and tax returns for most of those Democrats too. How exactly did they take or steal the nation's wealth? How do you do that exactly? This entire idea that someone is poor because someone else is rich is absurd. There is not a finite amount of wealth.
I completely agree. I hate it when people refer to the ID law as discriminatory. They could call it "discriminatory" if it required a driver's license, but it doesn't, it requires a state ID which are only $10!
I was the one who started this thread. I cannot believe how disgustingly contentious and mean spirited it became so fast. I got attacked for thinking Ann Romney seemed stiff, and I meant, insincere and emotionally stiff, not knowing she had MS. I watched her later in the convention, and she did look uncomfortable, which now I understand, as she has a physical disability. I still do not believe the Romneys can make anyone believe they live like "normal" people, no matter how much the dress cost. And she's not the First Lady, so how Michele Obama presents herself is a reflection on our country. Now it's turned into voter fraud. We in NJ receive a long printed sheet with the candidates, and with our voting district on it. The voting district really doesn't change much, unless the buildings get old and they don't have handicapped access. We have people who sit at each voting site, called "challengers," who know a lot of the local people, such as my husband and I represent our voting district. The challengers can say if they believe the person is not who they say they are, or if they tried to vote twice. It's never happened. So far it's all been fair. But it's not as easy to get photo proof of your ID in NJ or other states as some have stated here. Our state only required photo ID's after 9/11, and many older people, or those who don't use a passport, simply don't have that ID. People over about 30 usually didn't have photos on their driver's licenses before 9/11 either, it could just be renewed by mail, since your photo didn't need updating. If a person never had a driver's license with the photo, or didn't bother to get it, as they weren't driving any more, they would not be able to prove their identity, unless other towns like ours have challengers who know many people. Elderly people are a large voting block in my town. It's not that easy to get a BC, you cannot get one with a raised stamp and notorized via the internet, as has been discussed as Republican gospel here. In small towns like mine, everyone knows everyone. It simply is not so easy to get proof of identity, in a state where the public transportation is poor, and the population is spread out. And many older people stop driving early in an overpopulated state like mine. But I still feel bad about how this thread got off topic, and feel the R's will believe anything they want and insist it's true, when it's been proved false and to be lies. It's sad really.
First, there is no reason to apologize. In fact this thread is quite calm compared to most. I think the Ann Romney speech is a little delicate. Presidential hopefuls wives are always looked upon to give a speech at these conventions. Our history we are split with who the women are. Many were just housewives, as our country involved they became employees as well as housewives, and recently many are now entrepreneurs. So we get a great mix of type of women that give the speeches, ones of confidence such as Clinton and Obama. Others like the Bush wives more laid-back, more family. That is the type woman Ann Romney is. See the differences her husband is successful and has done well for himself so therefore she can't understand what it's like to be a woman, to raise children, to be married, to run a house. She was not political in her speech, she did what was expected of her, to talk about her husband, to soften his image. She did just that. Yet others question her motives, they knock her speech, in twitter on the Internet and chat rooms, many from the left were saying that they wish she was dead, among the many distasteful things that they was saying about her. So you have to expect we make a post in a thread like this after reading and hearing those types of statements, people will have their backs up. But I can promise you Jean, none of the meant that against you.By the way, besides dealing with MS, she is also a breast cancer survivor. I believe people should cut her a little slack.
As for ID cards, I am one who strongly believes everybody needs to carry photo ID, truth of the matter is almost everybody does. They say it creates an undue burden on the poor. I was like somebody to explain that me. I know I've heard every excuse, it's too far to get the ID, transportation is poor, it cost too much to get, some people don't have the documentation needed to get. All I can say is those excuses are bogus. Not care how poor you are you have ID. Are you getting help with section 8 for housing voucher, in order to get that you needed picture ID, on food stamps, welfare, you need picture ID to get signed up. When you get your welfare check how you cash it? No matter how you try to cash it, you will need photo ID.
I used to be a 1% and will go into everything that's happened in my life. I been in now the hospital over the last five years mostly in, almost died December 2010. All of my personal possessions were in storage and of course being in a hospital for that long I wasn't making any money and they auctioned off my storage. I had nothing. When it came time to leave the hospital I discovered that all my verification was in the locker, I drivers license, social security card, passport, birth certificate. With the exception of my birth certificate, a photo ID and Social Security card were free. I am handicapped, I have no transportation, I am in a wheelchair in yet I was able to get everything. Sorry if I could do it anybody can do it.
Please answer for me:
For over a century, since women and African-Americans legally got the right to vote, there have been hundreds of elections. The incidence of voter fraud since 2000 has been a total of 2068 verified cases. Of these, exactly 10 were voter impersonation cases, which would have been caught by photo ID. You can look up the statistics for yourself at http://votingrights.news21.com/interact … -database/
That is out of hundreds of millions of votes cast in the USA since 2000, and is statistically less than .0002 percent.
Somehow, we've all managed to vote with a utility bill, or a photo ID, or a student ID, or many other forms which were accepted.
So, since the problem is less than .002 percent of all votes cast in America, how do you justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people whose parents and grandparents fought and bled and were jailed in the civil rights movement for the right to vote? How does that make sense, unless you, like Pennsylvania legislator Mike Turzai, say that voter ID laws will allow Mitt Romney to win? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 Yes, I too use Youtube sources, but at least I post links and tell you what they are).
If you can only win by rigging the system to weaken the opposition, do you still consider it a fair election?
I'm a patriot who truly believes in fair elections. I've registered hundreds of voters in my state, of all political denominations, and that is and should be a non partisan effort.
As far as your argument that "All poor people automatically have photo ID", check that with a 93 year old who didn't need any photo ID to get her pension which she lives on, gets no other assistance, doesn't drive, and has no birth certificate. http://www.philly.com/philly/video/BC1789606029001.html
Or how about the young college student whose college ID is not accepted as voting ID, although a gun license would be? How about the new citizen, who has been waiting 15 years for citizenship (that actually is the amount of time from applying for citizenship to obtaining it), yet has no ID? She has never gotten any assistance from government because all of this time, she has lived in the shadows, staying at home or being paid minimal cash for work.
Do you really believe that all poor people get government assistance? You can't imagine anyone not receiving that? You never heard of "Poor but proud", or just can't imagine it being applied to non white people?
Are you a patriot? If so, shouldn't you be helping people to vote instead of trying to keep them from it?
Nothing like using a channel 21 kind of news report. I especially like the quote " those that were reported to us." I guess research is not tops on their list.
I have responded to many forums on this, and quite frankly am tired of people who refuse to see the issue clearly. You claim only 10 people were prosecuted, in another thread I show links to people arrested in Florida from 2001 and 2004 who were convicted. The list was over 30 people so you first fact just sank. As for what is accepted and not as photo ID, you need to research it more, I think you will be surprised as to what is actually accepted as compared to the talking points you are using.
Next, it does not take 15 years to become a US citizen. You can read up on it yourself.
http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citiz … ocess.html
As for questioning me if I am a patriot, you need to look inside yourself. What qualifies you to be a patriot, because you are in college playing video games makes you a patriot? Have you ever written a bill, have you met with your local reps, have you ever served on a committee that gave recommendations to congress? I did not think so. Where were you on 9-11? I know where I was.
I know you are new here, so some words of advise, do some real research from credible sources before putting them out here, and do not question people you do not know.
Wow, you think that I'm a college student? How, exactly, did you come to this conclusion? Could it be my political inclinations (liberal), or the fact that my other hubs are on the topic of medieval fantasy literature? At any rate, my married son and high school students would appreciate the fact that someone calls me "Young KW", and advises me to let older, presumably wiser heads do the "real research" and commentary here.
I asked if Sassy Sue was a patriot. Didn't ask you specifically, however you are welcome to respond. "Yes", "No", and "In certain respects", are great responses to that question. Telling me to look inside myself, not so much. I actually wasn't attacking your patriotism, so you needn't defend it, nor attack mine.
As far as your other questions, yes, I have written innumerable letters to legislatures, attended legislative sessions, met with legislators, although I have not served on a committee that advised legislators.
When 9/11 happened, I was teaching a 6th grade class. We watched the TV in horror as the buildings crumpled, and the little ones were terrified that someone might bomb their school. We had an early release that day, as no one knew what might come next. Yes, I remember it well.
You may be right about the length of time to become a citizen. It appears to take about 3-5 years average. However, people I knew reported much longer times. That is anecdotal evidence, not statistical.
Where is your link to the site that reports 30 felons tried to vote in Florida? I'm not seeing it.
As far as
KW, maybe not so young LOL
Don't ask me how or why but I have had the ability to read people really well. When I meet them in person after just a few minutes conversation I have a good sense of who they are. By reading these forums I can generally tell a lot of the person based on their writing. I conclusions on you being a college student if they were inaccurate had nothing to do with your hubs or your profile could have not read either, it was just based on your comments. Like everything else we can't be right hundred percent of the time.
I will take you at your word that you are not questioning my patriotism. But in your threadyou posted that asks the question " are you a patriot", You started that thread by addressing me American View, so naturally anything you would right after that one would assume he was speaking to the addressee.
As for the citizenship question, I have to sister-in-law's one from Peru, the other from Italy, who both became US citizens prior to marrying my brothers. Both cases it took about a year from the time they filed to the time it took the oath. According to the US website they claim it only takes five months. Makes me laugh, the government can't get anything done at five months.
There is no one link to the voters story I mentioned. It was about six or seven links they put in one response. It was a thread about voter ID cards I have to say that thread got more responses than I have ever seen any other questions get. I don't think anybody can argue the fact that voter fraud is negligible at best, but in these times of close elections several votes can mean the world. The 2000 presidential election showed that, and since then there have been some extremely tight races. Al Franken and after five vote recounts
was declared the winner by 12 votes. There was another election and I can't remember where was but it was for a House seat and the election was so close and had so many recounts it took six months to declare the winner in that case the winner was less than 10 votes. Now you may say so one House member or one senators race even if with voter fraud elected the wrong person would hurt anything, just look at today's Senate makeup and picture if one Republican senator won by fraud how that would change the outlook in the Senate.
One thing that bothers me is the no one is supposed to criticize anything about Ann Romney because she has a disability. As a person with a slight mobility disability I find that very patronizing. It's like "0h, the poor dears!"
However, I don't believe in attacking the wives of presidents and their children, and candidates wives and their children. Yet, I don't believe making a comment about a public speech someone gave is out of order.
Seems Jean got banned for this thread. To me she is one of the least insulting people on this thread.
Hmmm. Probably certain someones on this thread decided that, since they clearly couldn't out-argue her, since they do not have facts on their side, and refer to things like, "Look on You Tube!" to back up their outlandish statements, the quickest revenge to make them feel powerful and "right" again was to get Jean banned.
But it's not 80% who are against it.
"Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ … 1M20120625
I did not say that 80% were against it now. BTW Rasmussen has 60% who want the Law repealed today. At the time of its passage however, the numbers ran between 72-80% against the Law, which is what I said.
1. It disenfranchises no one except for illegal and fraudulent voters.
2. You get the short answer because I can't take anyone seriously who thinks it's been a century since women have had the right to vote. Clearly, you are not informed.
Clearly you are ignoring the facts and cynically playing extremely partisan politics.
No. I've actually done some research. There have been prosecutions of voter fraud. After the 2000 election, when the DNC tried to claim voter fraud three separate agencies investigated. There were 8000 cases of fraud. Most were not prosecuted and most are not prosecuted. It has nothing to do with effect and more to do with costs associated with such prosecution. Of those 8000 fraudulent votes which included felons voting, people voting out of district more than once and non-citizens voting, 90% of them were for Al Gore. What I am ignoring is the propaganda put out by the DNC as to all these disenfranchised people. Where are they? Why are they not hitting the streets in protest? According to the numbers in just PA alone there are over 700,000 of them. Why are they silent but for a handful? Because they do not exist.
Again, because it is being ignored by the left on this thread, these laws have already been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. Most are old laws and not new. Again, because it is completely being ignored, don't you find it odd that the DNC is only concerned with "certain" states and not all 30 of them? Isn't it odd that those "certain" states are all swing states? Oh what a coincidence that is. Wake up.
Links, please, especially for the "8000 fraudulent voters for Gore". Since you are so extremely well informed, please enlighten us poor voter advocates as to the extent of your wonderful research. Links and websites, O wise one. Or just admit that you're pulling it out of some Fox hole, or some dubious and source such as World Net Daily.
If you're not willing to back up your claims, please don't make them.
When I said a "century", I was being approximate and generalizing. You are aware of those words and terms, yes? They don't equal ill-informed.
Most Western nations extended the franchise to women2 years after the end of World War I, i.e., 1920. We are now at 2012, or approximately 92 years away from the beginning of women's franchise. Close enough to "a century". A few western states, like Colorado and Wyoming, gave women the vote earlier. Feel free to apologize to me, although I won't hold my breath.
Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage
To be more specific for you, since while you seem to know how to post in a forum, you can't manage a Google search here you go:
"Contrary to the common Gore supporter claim, each and every study of these votes has pointed to Democrats as the main culprits, not Bush. The Palm Beach Post study alone concluded that at least 68% of the 5,643 illegal felon voters were confirmed Democrats. The Florida Times-Union noted that their study in Duval County similarly suggested that the fraud was overwhelmingly Democrat. The Miami Herald's many investigations produced similar results. In one case, massive fraud was traced back to a precinct that voted 90% for Al Gore. Another Miami Herald study estimated that 75% of the illegal voters it found were Democrats. After extensive investigations of voter fraud, the results could not be more clear: voter fraud was widespread in Florida, and was committed overwhelmingly by Democrats in almost every single case. In other words, Al Gore would have easily fallen several thousand votes short of George W. Bush instead of just a few hundred had Gore not benefited from massive and widespread voter fraud on his behalf in Florida."
original source: http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/floridaelection.html
sources of research: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_c … orida.html
You'll see this also talks about the fraudulent votes as well.
Yes, I am aware that Colorado allowed women to vote earlier than the rest of the nation. That does not make it a generally true statement however. Further, while I know blacks were allowed to vote earlier, I'd venture to say that they were not really allowed to vote until the Civil Rights' Movement.
You're right, you won't get an apology because you do not say "for about a century" or even "for a century" you say "for OVER a century". Not a term you use when you are aware it has not quite been a century and are simply rounding up.
I won't get an apology because, you seem to have trouble with that concept.. Instead, you have to double down on insults such as telling me that I don't know how to do a Google search. My dear, how exactly do you think that I find my sources? It's a mystery to you, no doubt. Oh, well.
. My original statement: "For over a century, since women and African-Americans legally got the right to vote, there have been hundreds of elections."
African American (males) enfranchised: 15th Amendment, 1870 http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?fla … amp;doc=44
Twelve western states (not just Colorado) had women with full suffrage OVER a century ago. Most other states gave limited suffrage to women, i.e. for school bond issues, local elections, and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_ … ted_States
The remaining states, except for those on the map in red, which, not coincidentally, are the current "red states", did not give women the right to vote until after the 19th amendment.
Whatever. We can vote now, and will vote Obama for President, much to your chagrin.
I did look at your sources which you supplied for your argument that all of the vote counting in Florida was those demonic Gore Democrats doing vile things. The source is biased, Orlandocapitalisttripod.com ??? Really, you're presenting this as a credible source, when every other sentence on the page is a diatribe against liberals? Wow.
Your other source, the Mike Thomas blog, is still a blog, therefore one man's opinion, but he does seem to have done his homework and has some credible unbiased sources himself.
Thank you for presenting your sources. It's a tad more work, but that way, we readers do have the chance to evaluate for ourselves whether a claim is credible, and not rely on those who spew the most hateful insults.
Actually the original source was biased as you state. Which is why I did research other sources. I included his blog because of the inclusion of more than once source and the extensive research he has done. That is why it states "original source" and "researching source" . Because, when I see something, leaning whatever way, if the source is biased I research the claim. Which is what I did and led me to his blog. I thought it actually explained things accurately and offered viable sources.
I did not dispute your claim for when Blacks superficially received the right to vote, only stated that in much of the country, it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that their voting rights were truly recognized and their votes counted.
Where, exactly, do those who spew the most hateful insults get their bile (or as they parade it, "truth") do you suppose?
From internet "news" sources that spew hateful insults.
The hateful insulters then simply regurgitate and repost the hate.
No analysis required when you're simply spreading "truth."
Exactly. This is why I am asking people to post their sources, as I am in my own hub (shameless plug) which is here:
<link snipped - no promotional links>
Not supposed to plug your own hubs on the forums.
Others can plug yours and you can plug theirs.
It happens on occasion, but don't want you to get ambushed for it.
Thanks, didn't know. The owner of the hub, Jean Bakula, may feel free to take it out when/if she returns from her undeserved banishment.
Since this thread has long since derailed from the subject of Mrs. Romney's RNC speech, perhaps some would like to discuss Michelle Obama's speech. Check out this hub which addresses that very topic:
http://kwcolorado.hubpages.com/hub/Obam … Convention
In regards to Jean's original question and her comments on the subject: I saw the speech and agree that she seemed 'stiff' and a bit out of touch. And, I also watched Michelle's speech. While I felt both ladies were genuine in their attempts to explain why their husbands should be elected (or re-elected), Michelle seems to have the ability to capture the audience better.
And, I think someone mentioned that Ann appeared irritated when Christie was speaking...I also caught that photo flash and have to agree...not sure if it was his long road in mentioning Romney, or if she was just plain uncomfortable. After all, she does have MS and an event that she attended no doubt put a lot of stress on her!
The original topic of this thread was Anne Romney's presentation skills and personality.
Having seen both First Ladies now, I have to say that both did a great job explaining why they love their men. Since I do have a liberal bias, I do think that Michelle O did a better job of promoting what her hubby would do for the country.
The philosophical differences between the candidates could not be clearer; while Anne R says that Mitt is kind and compassionate, she also claimed that he "built it", i.e. his success.
Let's face it, it is a bit easier to be successful when one CAN borrow money from multimillionaire parents, and live off of stock options in college. She continued to claim that people were "attacking Mitt's success." Those are the two main memes of Republicans these days - an attempts to stir up resentment amongst entrepeneurs against Obama. The reality is, no one on the Dem side is "attacking success", nor suggesting that building a business isn't primarily due to the entrepenueur's hard work.
In Obama's original speech, he said that, to build a business, one needs resources in common - schools, roads, university-funded research. No one sane really argues with that. However, right-wing pundits immediately deleted several sentences out of Obama's speech to make their point. Anne Romney went right along with this somewhat dishonest effort.
She also made this factually shaky claim about Romney's "fixing" unemployment: "He did it in Massachusetts, where he guided a state from economic crisis to unemployment of just 4.7%.".
Politifact rates this claim as "half true", stating that actual numbers over Romney's tenure varied widely, that the 4.7 was his very last month in office, and that the nation as a whole was doing better, (the rise which preceded the crash, under Bush's deregulation of oil speculation, Wall Street and the housing market - that's my comment on why we did well for most of G W Bush's tenure.).
Fact Checker.com gave the Romney claims "Two Pinocchios" after putting his claims to lead on creating jobs to the fact check test.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … _blog.html
So, while both First Ladies were beautiful, charming, loving to their husbands, and captured their respective audience's hearts, I would have to say that Anne Romney, whatever her "stiffness", played fast and loose with the facts in her quest to boost her hubby's election chances.
Both wires have now spoken. I did not watch either one give their speech though I have seen some clips from Ann Romney and I am sure between today and tomorrow I will see some for Michelle Obama. The biggest reason I don't watch them is because let's face it they're not the candidates, the not the policymakers the ones making the decisions for future. I'm sure both gave heartfelt speeches, but that's their job, to show that their husbands are great guys and great family man, to reject them as honest tough and yet fair. The same speech has been given that every presidential campaign convention for a long time. I always take exception when people criticize these women, calling Stiff, make fun of their body shape, their hairstyle, their facial features, and many other things. Those things should be out of bounds, they're just trying to support their husbands as any other wife would do.
You accuse Ann Romney of going along with the GOP dishonest effort. I do not say what the effort is but I think you're referring to they did not build it.Let me ask you a question, what do you think led to the need for schools and roads and ecology research centers to advance technology? They were needed because of the results of small business, and then small businesses and our tax money paid for them. What do you think happened some president woke up this morning and said hey let's go build some roads and then maybe somebody will open a business to use them. I know the left likes to go back and trying correct itself by saying we didn't say that or you're twisting around or you took it out of context. Read it closely, Obama said it, and it is clearly in context.
You made the comment that Romney had easy because he was living all stock options. Please cite your source,
You believe that the statement of unemployment in Massachusetts under Romney was " shaky". You notate and rightfully so that unemployment did go up and down during his term in that 4.7% which was the lowest was on the last month of this term. Would that not mean unemployment was higher prior since that was the lowest end of his term? In factunemployment was 5.9% when Romney took office, 4.7% when he left. I'm not sure if math has changed all that much in the many years I've been out of school, but it seems to me 4.7% is less
Now the numbers do not lie, though I do know the left loves to fudge them to try and create a different outlook. So I had to go and readt politicfact fact check. Here is what they wrote and is quite disturbing
"On unemployment, PolitiFact tested a Romney claim that he reduced Massachusetts unemployment to 4.7 percent. We rated that claim Half True; the number was correct, but we ruled that Romney did not deserve as much credit as he was giving himself.".
They discarded the fact because they think he didn't deserve it. That would be like saying Obama has not been the president for the last 3 1/2 years because he didn't deserve it. Partly using the claim that the nation as a whole is getting better. Okay answer me this, our countries unemployment is at 8.3%, was as high as 10.4%, unemployment is going up almost every month Democrat controlled states, yet under the Republican-controlled states unemployment is going down. So based on the theory that what happens in the states unemployment is because of what happened in the nation unemployment, how you explain what's going on in Republican control states?
@kw Firstly, thank you not using this opportunity to blast Ann Romney. I would expect the First Lady to be more loose and comfortable making a speech to a large crowd. She is an attorney after all and has had the last four years on the national stage. Ann Romney has no such background. it was most likely the largest crowd she has ever faced and was also televised to millions of viewers nationwide. We cannot know if her MS was bothering her that particular evening, though it is possible, but I know that I'd most likely come off not too well if it was me giving that speech. The wives are not the ones running for office though, so to pick her apart as has been done by some on this thread is low.
But, you know, only because you wanted to blast me for a right leaning source, which was not my only source, please do not quote things like politico (run by the Tampa Bay Times, very left leaning publication) and the washington post (another left leaning publication) and expect it to be taken as concrete fact.
You could actually check the numbers for yourself as to Romney's time as Governor as Mass. The facts are there in black and white numbers.
Please post the black and white numbers from an impartial source.
Sassy Sue and American View: Are you married, friends, or the same person? I notice that when I reply to one of you, the other one answers. Be that as it may.
Sue, I did a close reading of the Mike Thomas blog, which you cited as your impartial source on the results of the 2000 election. The only problem is that Mike Thomas never came to a conclusion about who won the Florida vote. To quote Thomas: "Democrats simply got out-slimed, outwitted and out-lawyered by the Republicans." And after citing numerous investigations by left and right-leaning investigators, Thomas concludes that:" I’ll give Gore half those, handing him the election by 495 votes. I think. . .""Here is the conclusion. So Gore would have won or Bush would have won. The best advice came from Gore. Get over it."
The point which you made about 8000 fraudulent voters in Florida in 2000 being a reason to suppress millions of voters in 2012, however, is not hindsight. It is frighteningly real. Many, many people have reviewed the list of voters whose votes were thrown out for supposedly being felons. Greg Palast is an investigative journalist. You probably will sneer at him for being "left-leaning", ie. pro-democracy, but Palast did his homework, and found:
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answ … nID=000660
"They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT [Database Technologies] issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong. [...]
Hindsight, in this case, is not only 20-20, it is like legally blind. Even according to your source, Mr. Thomas. I can't resist a bit of hindsight, though....
So are you happy with GW Bush's years? The two pointless wars based on lies, thousands dead, trillions spent, the worst recession in history based on giving Wall Street a license to steal.
Do you love it? Or do you, like me, wish that Jeb Bush had been a bit less partial to brother George in 2000.
We can't do anything about the past....all we can do anything about is now. I commit my own efforts to registering voters of all political stripes in the fairest way possible, and getting them to the polls. Do you have a problem with that?
The only reason for my last response was because you asked for numbers in black and white, and most people don't know or have access to where to get those numbers. So I thought I was being kind to answer your request and you come back with a sarcastic remark about me and someone else. And you wonder why I said you a young college student.
In my time here on hub pages there have been many debates about the 2000 elections. I don't have the time to can try and find yourself. There's a report of a college they got access to all the votes in Florida. They examined and hand-counted every card. They examine the Did every early vote writing vote and military vote. Was a really cool report and have a lot of interesting insight as well as great recommendations for the future. The bottom line at the end of the day was the winner was still George Bush but even at a larger margin than he was certified as. It really is a shame that that report didn't get big airplay it only received a few mentions on Fox and really wasn't talked about anywhere else. Not because the results because at that point they meant nothing but like I said the recommendations in their views I thought were great and those could have been looked at for future elections.
KW, you continually ask everyone else to find you impartial sources, yet you bring out nothing but left wing propaganda sites. Apparently you are either lazy, computer illiterate or a hypocrite. Either way, I go out of my way to attempt to find objective sources. As the mainstream media seldom will offer anything that criticizes this Administration, it is not always an easy task and one you obviously cannot be bothered with at all.
@kw "We can't do anything about the past....all we can do anything about is now. I commit my own efforts to registering voters of all political stripes in the fairest way possible, and getting them to the polls. Do you have a problem with that?"
No I have no problem with that at all. In fact, in another thread I believe we even talked about that as well. Get off your duff and take your neighbor down to the polls or down to the DMV whatever. It doesn't change the fact that no one is disenfranchised, especially in the numbers they are putting out there. In one state alone it is 700,000. They'd be making noise in those numbers. It simply does not exist. That is fact. You talk about the elderly and no transportation. Sorry but the elderly and the disabled have a thing called C.A.R.T. that will take them anywhere they need to go locally. And you know what else? It is not on me or the GOP to prove voter fraud. It is up to the challengers to prove disenfranchisement. That is how the legal system works. Just because they have found a few left leaning judges to overturn 2 laws does not mean they win. I also like how everyone keeps ignoring the fact that these laws were already ruled constitutional. Isn't that the argument we get from the left on ObamaCare? It was ruled constitutional so get over it.
by Susan Reid3 years ago
NJ Governor Chris Christie, who as recently as a week ago was a harsh critic of Obama's leadership has a new BFF: Barack Obama.He's been effusive (some believe TOO effusive) in his praise for the POTUS and his handling...
by Charles4 years ago
Does he really think that the solution to the dwindling social security fund is to privatize it? Perhaps it would be a better idea to return the money that has been "borrowed" without our consent? ...
by screaming4 years ago
With track records like these, do you really think Romney can create jobs? As Gov, Romney had Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creations. And in New Jersey, Gov Christie has his state ranked 48th in job creations. Yeah...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
RADIO HOST: I’m gonna ask something I know a lot of people want to know, or at least I do. What it is like for you to hear the President of the United States call your dad a liar. How do you react to...
by Jimbo'daNimbo3 years ago
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/pre … -failures/I wonder what might have happened if Mitt had advised these firms? We will never know will we?
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.