The Republican Party's political suicide

by Shirina Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:38 pm

First topic message reminder :

As I'm sure many here know, Texas governor Rick Perry is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Fortunately he has fallen to subterranean levels as far as approval rates are concerned, but the Republicans as a whole are going to feel the sting of this political advertisement aired by Governor Perry. It's enough to make you blink and ask, "Did he really say that?" You might have to watch it more than once to verify that, yes, he really DID say that. Take a look:

It's not often that someone can squeeze in so many inaccurate statements into a 30 second soundbite, but Rick Perry managed to give it a good go. Let's start.

He begins by saying, "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian." The implication here is that, despite Christians being the overwhelming majority in America, Christians are ashamed of their religion. Or, more accurately, that non-Christians are making Christians feel ashamed of being one. The evangelical and fundamentalist brand of Christianity are always looking for excuses to claim they are being persecuted since that is one of the tenants of their faith. Few things on earth are as noble as suffering in defense of Christ and Christianity, but it's pretty damned difficult to suffer and be persecuted when you're an 85% majority and pretty much call all of the shots (how many non-Christian presidents have there been?). As a result, whenever Christians don't get their own way (which is rare), they whine, stomp, and boohoo into their beers; more importantly, they scream of being persecuted against. "See, God? Look at me! I'm suffering for you! Are you watching this?" Rick Perry is grandstanding for the Christians, and it is thoroughly distasteful.

Moving on, he says, "You don't have to be in a pew every Sunday to know there is something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

There has always been a paradox with Republicans: They love our troops but hate gays. So how do they feel about gay troops? The question then becomes: Do they hate gays more than they love the troops? Rick Perry answers that question. For MOST people, regardless of political ideology, the fact that a person is a member of the armed forces putting themselves in harms way comes first. That is paramount. Whether they are gay, Christian, Muslim, straight, or whatever else they may be comes in at a very distant second. This is being perceived as an attack on the troops, for it matters more to Perry that a soldier is gay than it does a gay being a soldier. Iraqi insurgents and roadside IEDs do not inquire about their victims' sexual orientation before pulling the trigger or exploding, and the majority of Americans know that. If his message had been about gay marriage, he may have had more traction, but focusing on gays in the military, well, he blew it.

The second part is just absolute nonsense. Children can't openly celebrate Christmas? When did that happen? Republicans using fear and hyperbole to terrify the population into voting for them is nothing new, but these days they are well past hyperbole and into baldfaced lies. Some corporations (not the government) may be telling their employees to wish customers "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" but that's a long, LONG ways from kids having to open their presents in a secret room in the basement because Christmas can't be celebrated openly. If Perry is waiting for an American version of Anne Frank's Diary where a young girl is caught celebrating Christmas by Obama's gestapo, he better settle in for a very long wait, indeed.

The third part is just another lie. Kids can pray in school. There are no laws or rules saying they can't. What the Republicans want, however, is a teacher-led sermon and children chanting their prayers in unison as part of the daily school routine. There are no pulpits in a public school classroom, and there's a reason for that. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion, and Christians are obviously not hoping for generic prayers ("Which God are we praying to, teacher?") or prayers to non-Christian gods. Gee, I wonder what's left?

Next, he says, "As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our Christian heritage."

First of all, there is no war on religion. This is Perry's third baldfaced lie uttered in a 30 second advertisement. There has not been one single piece of legislation - not a single one - out of Obama's office that can even be construed as a "war" on religion. No, Obama not mentioning God during his Thanksgiving speech doesn't count. It's amazing how a candidate for president can have the temerity to boldly proclaim something so utterly untrue on national television, but there it is. Anything to stir up Christians who are already looking for liberal persecution under every rock and behind every tree. What they should be looking for is truth and honesty from their leaders.

Finally, he concludes with, "Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Every nation on the planet with the same degree of religiosity as America is essentially a Third World cesspool. America is an aberration, a statistical anomaly, for it would seem America is strong despite our faith, not because of it.

by Stox 16 Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:17 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Rick Perry to end presidential campaign
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – 32 mins ago

BLUFFTON, S.C. -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans to announce an end to his presidential campaign Thursday, Yahoo News has confirmed.

The announcement was first reported by CNN.

Perry will make the announcement at a press conference in Charleston, South Carolina at 11 a.m. and will endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Politico reports.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-rick-perry-end-campaign-141912141.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh Happy Day!

yep happy days indeed. just hope the rest of them lose as well in the big one. God they are so backward looking

by Guest Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:31 am

Stox,

Only problem is that Pery is on his way back to Texas to plague us full time! Lawd hab mucy!

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:29 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

Only problem is that Pery is on his way back to Texas to plague us full time! Lawd hab mucy!

Rock
You poor guy. I feel so sorry for you Rock. out of interested who do you think will win the Rep race? have too say, I believe there are all a bit Crazy in the head too me. see Gingrrich won South Carolina Rock.

by Mkitty Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:07 pm

And you should see all their tax plans: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577032192167011700.html

(well Santorum and Bachmann haven't released anything yet) and it was made in the middle of October, so there may be changes.

Note how they all lower rates for the wealthy and via "flat tax" and "consumption tax" raise how much the poor and middle class will pay.

Anyone here jumping for joy that the rich will pay even less? I mean don't people who shuffle capital gains deserve a break more than people who actually work?

And guess what, "Higher Deficits Seen in Romney’s Tax Plan, and His Rivals’, Too"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/romneys-tax-bill-and-gop-deficit-problems.html?_r=1

So what'll happen? Well, the rich will get lower tax rates (and not really hire anyone: See how well the Bush tax cuts did in 2009?), the middle class will pay more, and there will be some sort of "deficit crisis," and there will be cuts that will have to be made, and it'll mostly be social programs. So if this "starve the beast" cycle (tax cuts --> oh noez! we have a deficit --> cut social programs --> tax cuts) continues, by 2024, off the backs of the poor and middle class, the rich will be paid by the government to make money, or they'll boo-hoo because why should the "job creators" will have to pay a 5% tax. Meanwhile, consumption will plummet, causing more unemployment, too.

This is in "The Republican Party's political suicide" thread because nobody, except for a few on the far right are falling for it. When Congressmen were trying to sell The Ryan Bill (you remember, the one that dropped the tax rate for the rich to 25% and made gramma go out and buy insurance), they were soundly booed by their Republican constituents (not those anarchist libs) whenever the Congressperson mentioned the tax cut.

Sure, they're getting cheered in the primaries, but it's going to sink in the general election. I'm just curious as to how the Republican nominee is going to sell it. I'm guessing Romney will fare the worst (as a Richie Rich reticent in even revealing his returns, there's little chance he's going to sway anyone). Gingrich might do okay, but he'll probably come up with some random diversion (see: kids as school janitors) or rationalization. I don't know what anyone else would do.

So exhibit B is Republicans' tax codes.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:05 am

Buffett Blames Congress for Romney's 15% Rate
By Andrew Frye and Andrea Ludtke | Bloomberg – 5 hours ago

Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney's U.S. tax rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws rather than failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

"It's the wrong policy to have," Buffett told Bloomberg Television's Betty Liu in an interview today. "He's not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don't fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that's about half what the average person in my office pays."

Full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-blames-congress-romneys-15-155000898.html

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:49 pm

Will Obama change this Law Rock? It would be a good sign to the electorate if he did

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:20 pm

Obama already tried to make US tax law fairer, in his first year. The Republicans fought him tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.

Better luck in his second term, eh?

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:24 pm

blueturando wrote:
Will Obama change this Law Rock? It would be a good sign to the electorate if he did

He can't, Blue. Only Congress can change a law. Obama can encourage Congress to do so, and I agree that it would be a good thing to how the electorate that rich brats pay at least the same percentage of their easy money as the percentage I pay of my hard (earned) money.

by blueturando Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:03 am

It would nice hey Rock, but it's sounds like youre not holding your breath on this one.
Let's hope that now Romney has had to come clean on his tax avoidance, that firstly he wont get elected and secondly there are enough waves made by the ordinary tax payer in the US to force congress to make a change to the law

by Guest Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:03 am

blueturando wrote:
It would nice hey Rock, but it's sounds like youre not holding your breath on this one.

You're right. I don't want to suffocate surrounded by air.

blueturando wrote:
Let's hope that now Romney has had to come clean on his tax avoidance, that firstly he wont get elected and secondly there are enough waves made by the ordinary tax payer in the US to force congress to make a change to the law

If enough of us ("We the People", damnit) remember that the entire House is elected every two years, maybe we can send 'em a message in November of this year.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:30 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
blueturando wrote:
Will Obama change this Law Rock? It would be a good sign to the electorate if he did

He can't, Blue. Only Congress can change a law. Obama can encourage Congress to do so, and I agree that it would be a good thing to how the electorate that rich brats pay at least the same percentage of their easy money as the percentage I pay of my hard (earned) money.

it needs changing this Rock. just need a congress willing to change it. but your right, let hope November sends them a message that people are peed off with this.

by Mkitty Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:17 pm

Undo everything Barack Obama has done

Many of those need a bill from Congress. as long as there's 40 Democratic members in the Senate, that isn't going to happen. Plus there's a fair chance Republicans will lose the House because of how awful they're doing. Congressional approval rating is still hovering around 13% (Rasmussen actually has it at 5%, which is starting to hit the "margin of error" zone http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance)

by Mkitty Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:58 pm

Trump endorsing Romney and Romney accepting it. No further explanations necessary.

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:06 pm

Romney is not a politician who lies to you ..................

"I'm not concerned about the very poor people"

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:16 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Romney is not a politician who lies to you ..................

"I'm not concerned about the very poor people"

Are we sure his name isn't Cameromney...? Shocked

by Mkitty Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:08 pm

During our Superbowl halftime, Clint Eastwood starred in a two minute halftime commercial It's halftime in America. It was just how it's halftime and if in America, and if Americans are knocked down, they get back up, etc.

But the Republicans had a real big hissy fit over it.

Republican Karl Rove Labels Clint Eastwood Chrysler Commercial an Obama Ad, Most Taxpayers Don't

Here's what Karl Rove said:

"I was frankly offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well done ad. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics,” Rove said. “The President of the United States' political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which has benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back.”

What makes that absolutely ludicrous is that it was Clint Eastwood who starred in it. He never voted Democrat in his life, here he is standing by Ronald Reagan:
The Republican Party's political suicide - Page 2 Clint-eastwood

The Republican Party's political suicide - Page 2 Clint-eastwood

who said ""I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase that Congress might even think of sending up. And I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." h

In fact, George Bush Almost Asked Clint Eastwood To Be His Vice-President

But despite all that evidence to the contrary, Rove thinks Eastwood is a minion of Obama, because if anyone dares say our situation is improving at all, they EVEN CLINT EASTWOOD, must be a rabid Obama supporter. This is the most desperate and tin foily case of Obama derangement syndrome in a while. I have to admit Karl Rove made my day. Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:10 pm

Let's not lose sight of the fact that these Republican candidates are ultimately seeking ELECTION, i.e. voter approval. If the Good Ole Boys of America are strong enough to reject Obama, they will do so. It's called Democracy, the Will of the People. Even if The People are all certifiable that makes no difference in a Democratic election.

by Shirina Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:34 pm

If the Good Ole Boys of America are strong enough to reject Obama, they will do so. It's called Democracy, the Will of the People. Even if The People are all certifiable that makes no difference in a Democratic election.

It takes a well-informed, well-educated population to participate in a well-governed democracy. If a candidate is to be elected, electing him based on anything other than factual information leads to the degradation of said democracy. If a candidate is elected based on lies, deceit, and fear-mongering, then it is likely we can expect four years of lies, deceit, and fear-mongering from that particular administration. If they cannot be honest about the reasons why we should vote for them, how can we expect them to be honest about their politics?

Mkitty and I are always revealing the right-wing lies ... I mean bald-faced lies, not honest mistakes ... that help convince the population to vote for their cause. Once the lies are discovered, they're already in power. When the foundation of your platform is nothing but fluff and air, democracy is already threatened.

There was a case not long ago involving Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Fox News tried to propagandize the American public by saying the Constitution said that Kagan was required to "recuse" herself from ruling on the constitutionality of the Act - in other words, Fox News was trying to say that Kagan could not rule on it because of a conflict of interest.

But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that Fox News claimed the Constitution required Kagan to withdraw from the case based on Article 28, Section 144.

Except there is no "Article 28, Section 144" in the Constitution ... at all. There are only 7 articles, and none of them contain more than 10 sections. Nor does the language contained within this fictitious "Article 28, Section 144" exist anywhere else in the Constitution, either.

That is called a lie. If Americans believe Fox News, then their opinions are based on lies - and so are their votes.

It goes without saying that Elena Kagan is a liberal judige.

by astra Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:25 pm

Interesting Shirina!!

Is there no-one prepared to take on Fox Gnus which I believe is a Murdoch tentacle. We have overmuch of him here in UK, and OK, his juggernaught is too big to halt ina TV programme, but should these (media) lies not be displayed to the public with trumpets playing and symbals clanging?

by Shirina Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:59 pm

Is there no-one prepared to take on Fox Gnus which I believe is a Murdoch tentacle.

Interestingly, Canada passed a law some time ago stating that news programs are prohibited from lying or delivering false reports. Subsequently, Fox News has been banned in Canada.

Unfortunately, America is not nearly so prudent.

by Guest Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:12 pm

Astra,

It's Faux News.

Article III says all that is said about Supreme Court Justices.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Article III - The Judicial Branch

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment (modified by Amendment 11)).

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

No "recuse" mentioned.

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:57 pm

Here is a list of 100 things you can say to irritate a Republican:-

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/08/13/100-things-you-can-say-to-irritate-a-republican/

by astra Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:19 am

Bottom line? If you want to anger a conservative, tell them the truth.

Heee Heee Heee

G'night all!!

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:45 am

The Republican Party has been immobilised by its disbelief that Obama was ever elected President. Their only policy has been to erase his proposed changes.

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed.

by Stox 16 Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:39 am

oftenwrong wrote:The Republican Party has been immobilised by its disbelief that Obama was ever elected President. Their only policy has been to erase his proposed changes.

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed.

The more I see and Read about the Republican party them more amazed I am that anyone who is not ill in the head could ever vote for them. by the time they get too Obama they will of cut each other to bits. to me the Repubican's sound like drunks fighting over a bed in the flophouse

by blueturando Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Simply opposing for the sake of dissent will probably not convince the American Voters that the situation needs to be reversed

.

I think we are seeing the same here in the UK. In reality the Coalition should be miles behind in the polls, but they're not and I believe this has a lot to do with opposing for opposing sake....the people don't buy it!

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:13 pm

Purely opportunistic opposition is almost always a mistake. But there was nobody more guilty of that very strategy as Cameron and his fellow vermin up to May 2010. Adding hypocrisy to it now simply makes them what they are : a poisonous and corrupt bunch who should be kept as far from power as a naked flame from petrol...

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:34 pm

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for 'em.
Who let them in again, I thought we'd settled their hash in 1997.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:08 pm

Yeah, so you say.

I bet you snuck into that Polling Booth back in May 2010 and supported the blue-rosetted one , then set off home, pausing only to salve your conscience by buying a Daily Mirror and whistling the Red Flag ( out of tune)...

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:06 pm

But the TORIES SENT A CAR for me.

by Mkitty Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:28 pm

*** we interrupt this thread with a Republican candidate saying the truth Shocked

***

"Oops, Mitt Romney Slips & Tells The Truth That Spending Cuts Hurt Economic Growth"
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/02/21/oops-mitt-romney-slips-tells-the-truth-that-spending-cuts-hurt-economic-growth/

Every so often, Romney, in his carefully propogandized messages, reveals the truth. He really isn't concerned about poor people. unless you consider his plans for the poor to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthy "concern." Of course now that's out, Republicans of the "cut and grow" philosophy are on damage control duty, mostly with their version of "nuh-uh." They can't counter that claim with facts, because they're basically espousing a "up is down" sort of philosophy and facts, explanations, or even simple logic make Conservatives' heads hurty! Me want easy to swallow catch phrase now!

Anyways, I imagine Romney will soon tell everyone he misspoke, Gingrich caved in when he told the truth about the Ryan plan. In fact, "Newt Gingrich: 'Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood'" http://www.polderdash.com/2011/05/gingrich-quoting-me-is-lying-about-me/

But basically it's political suicide for the party when someone in it is chastised by them for telling the truth.

by Shirina Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:37 am

The only problem with Romney making blunders like that is it's giving more steam to Santorum - and Santorum is the most extreme candidate in the bin right now. More to the point, he's a "social issues" candidate, and his social issues are not pleasant. They are ultra-conservative and ultra-Old Testament. Of course there is that ridiculous speech he made about how "Satan is assaulting America's institutions." What I find interesting is how, according to him, Satan has already seized control of institutions regarded as traditionally liberal such as academia and the entertainment industry. Go figure.

What worries me more than an idiot who is using an assault by a supernatural demon-lord as part of his platform is that he is using "Satan" in place of "liberal."

by Guest Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:59 am

Look at Brother Mitt a little more closely. Santorum isn't owned.

by Stox 16 Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:44 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Look at Brother Mitt a little more closely. Santorum isn't owned.

Rock
what I cannot quite get my head around. is the fact that both my go down well within the Rep. but will get know where with most US people...its all just a waste of time if they can only win the Rep race... mind you I am dead pleased they cannot myself..

by Guest Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:21 am

Stox,

True. The big difference to me is that I trust Santorum to tell me exactly where he stands, but I don't feel that I can trust Romney on any level.

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me. I've thought about it, and the Republican that might have gotten my vote has never been a candidate.

by Shirina Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:48 am

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.

Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Four years ago, who could have predicted that the Republican Party would have shifted so far to the right by now?

by Guest Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:23 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.

Shirina wrote:
Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

The analogy breaks down with these two assumptions: (1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door; (2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Two truths: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and money doesn’t fall out of the sky. Everything that we don’t have costs money, and thus provisions to provide what we don’t have involve figuring out how to pay for those things.

My mouthy health insurance hit is six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month, seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) per year, with significant co-pays at both medical facilities (clinics, etc.) and pharmacies. If I had no out-of-pocket costs, that’s a whole slew of money I could have invested elsewhere.

Slightly left field, you’ve not seen me complain about the health care itself because that part is just fine. I’ve no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care I receive.

NHS, according to those who’ve responded to my requests for information thereof, cost Brits nothing out of pocket, but they pay at the “FICA” line, similar to how we pay for social security, so NHS is not free. Canadian universal heath care, according to a patient lady at the Ontario tax agency with whom I spoke a few weeks ago, cost at the “FICA” line and “at the pump” via the “Harmonized Tax”, similar to our sales tax, of thirteen percent (13%), a significant portion of which goes to fund universal health care. By comparison, people in Virginia Beach complain about paying ten percent (10%) at the pump, so they routinely bebop across Va. Beach city limit lines and shop in Norfolk, where the sales tax is maybe two percent lower. Once again, Canadian universal health care isn’t free.

Another thing the Ontario tax lady told me is that Ontarians have no choice in the “FINA” line; the money comes out before the remainder gets into their hands. There is no choice.

Rick Santorum addresses these issues straight out. He’s hiding nothing behind any doors. I know that you disagree with him, but it’s not over horse manure, it’s over funding universal health care. I hear the protests before I send this and you read this, because you don’t mention the money issue, but the money issue is there the moment you mention universal health care, because it’s not free in the UK, it’s not free in Canada, and it would not be free in the US.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How much am I willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How willing are some Americans to have no choice, as Ontarians have no choice, in the “FICA” line? These are money issues, and Santorum doesn’t duck them.

Romney, on the other hand, ducks all of them. He criticizes Obama but does not state where he stands. That’s all I need to know about Romney, as it was all I needed to know about Bachmann, a lady whose expertise in one area I respect but who negates this respect by having only one response to all questions: “Obama.”

I can and do respect people with whom I vehemently disagree as long as they are straight up about what they believe and why the believe. I find Santorum to be in this category.

I would like the honor of voting against Rick Santorum in November. It would be an honor because I would know where he stands, where I agree with him, and where I disagree with him. I would have a choice, and given current circumstances, I would not choose him while respecting the man I did not choose.

In stark contrast, given Romney’s duplicitous non-answers to straight out questions, I doubt that my current deep disrespect for Romney will change anytime soon. That disrespect started for me with his non-answer to a direct question I first saw on YouTube in 2007, when he tap-danced around a question regarding his religion’s historic stance on Black Folks. I’ve posted the YouTube video on this forum before.

by Mkitty Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:28 pm

What I find interesting is how, according to him, Satan has already seized control of institutions regarded as traditionally liberal such as academia and the entertainment industry.

I also find it interesting how in these "Satan is taking over" talks, they never mention Wall Street or corporations or even banks-- you remember how Jesus only got really mad once, and that was with the money lenders, don't you? But we all know the Republican Bible would only be a page at the most, and it would contain:

The Ten Commandments: not to be followed, but the sole purpose of them is to be put on stone tablets and placed in every court house.

Those anti-gay verses in the Old Testament. Note how the other commandments like not wearing mixed fibers or making sure women will be silent in church aren't followed

Enough of the Adam and Eve story to disprove evolution

Matthew 24:31

"And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other."
"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood"

Those verses were used to disprove global warming.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/john-shimkus-climate-change_n_782664.html

by Stox 16 Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:28 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Stox,

True. The big difference to me is that I trust Santorum to tell me exactly where he stands, but I don't feel that I can trust Romney on any level.

If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me. I've thought about it, and the Republican that might have gotten my vote has never been a candidate.

Rock
there is little wrong in disagreeing at all...I am just so pleased I do not have to see the Rep on TV Rock..just not a fan of the Right at all

by Stox 16 Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:34 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
If I know about you well enough to disagree with you, that's better than Romney to me.
Shirina wrote:
Hello, Rock:

I have to strongly disagree with your logic here.

Do you remember that old game show "Let's Make A Deal?" Imagine if you were on the show and had to choose between two doors. Behind Door #1 you KNOW for a fact is a pile of horse manure. You have no idea what's behind Door #2. It could be horse manure, but it could be a new car or a dream vacation. Now, which one of those doors would you pick? Your logic suggests that you would rather pick the horse manure because at least you know you'd be getting it rather than risk getting something much better.

Or ... better the guarantee of garbage than the chance of treasure.

The analogy breaks down with these two assumptions: (1) the assumption that Rick Santorum is hiding something behind his door; (2) the assumption that the contents behind his door are horse manure.

Two truths: Money doesn’t grow on trees, and money doesn’t fall out of the sky. Everything that we don’t have costs money, and thus provisions to provide what we don’t have involve figuring out how to pay for those things.

My mouthy health insurance hit is six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month, seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200.00) per year, with significant co-pays at both medical facilities (clinics, etc.) and pharmacies. If I had no out-of-pocket costs, that’s a whole slew of money I could have invested elsewhere.

Slightly left field, you’ve not seen me complain about the health care itself because that part is just fine. I’ve no complaints whatsoever about the quality of care I receive.

NHS, according to those who’ve responded to my requests for information thereof, cost Brits nothing out of pocket, but they pay at the “FICA” line, similar to how we pay for social security, so NHS is not free. Canadian universal heath care, according to a patient lady at the Ontario tax agency with whom I spoke a few weeks ago, cost at the “FICA” line and “at the pump” via the “Harmonized Tax”, similar to our sales tax, of thirteen percent (13%), a significant portion of which goes to fund universal health care. By comparison, people in Virginia Beach complain about paying ten percent (10%) at the pump, so they routinely bebop across Va. Beach city limit lines and shop in Norfolk, where the sales tax is maybe two percent lower. Once again, Canadian universal health care isn’t free.

Another thing the Ontario tax lady told me is that Ontarians have no choice in the “FINA” line; the money comes out before the remainder gets into their hands. There is no choice.

Rick Santorum addresses these issues straight out. He’s hiding nothing behind any doors. I know that you disagree with him, but it’s not over horse manure, it’s over funding universal health care. I hear the protests before I send this and you read this, because you don’t mention the money issue, but the money issue is there the moment you mention universal health care, because it’s not free in the UK, it’s not free in Canada, and it would not be free in the US.

How much are you willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How much am I willing to pay in the “FICA” line and at the pump? How willing are some Americans to have no choice, as Ontarians have no choice, in the “FICA” line? These are money issues, and Santorum doesn’t duck them.

Romney, on the other hand, ducks all of them. He criticizes Obama but does not state where he stands. That’s all I need to know about Romney, as it was all I needed to know about Bachmann, a lady whose expertise in one area I respect but who negates this respect by having only one response to all questions: “Obama.”

I can and do respect people with whom I vehemently disagree as long as they are straight up about what they believe and why the believe. I find Santorum to be in this category.

I would like the honor of voting against Rick Santorum in November. It would be an honor because I would know where he stands, where I agree with him, and where I disagree with him. I would have a choice, and given current circumstances, I would not choose him while respecting the man I did not choose.

In stark contrast, given Romney’s duplicitous non-answers to straight out questions, I doubt that my current deep disrespect for Romney will change anytime soon. That disrespect started for me with his non-answer to a direct question I first saw on YouTube in 2007, when he tap-danced around a question regarding his religion’s historic stance on Black Folks. I’ve posted the YouTube video on this forum before.

Rock here is the UK Spending on the NHS

HISTORY OF NHS SPENDING

At the beginning of the 20th century, government spent about 0.5 percent of GDP on health. But spending began to increase in 1909 after passage of the National Insurance Act, reaching 1.14 percent of GDP in 1921.
Health spending increased steadily in the 1920s and 1930s reaching 1.91 percent of GDP at the start of World War II. Spending kept steady during the war and then increased briskly after the war, reaching 3.07 percent just before the National Health Service was set up in 1948.
Costs rose sharply in the early years of the NHS, reaching 3.6 percent of GDP by 1950 and then dropping to 3.0 percent of GDP by 1955. Spending increased steadily after the mid 1950s, running at about 3.5 percent of GDP in the early 1960s and increasing to 4.0 percent of GDP by 1970 and peaking at 4.98 percent of GDP in 1975.
Health spending declined in the late 1970s, down to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1979 and increased thereafter, reaching 5.64 percent of GDP in 1983 before beginning a decline to 5.16 percent in 1988. Then spending jolted upwards, reaching 6.31 percent of GDP by 1993 before a steep decline to 4.91 percent of GDP in 1998.

Spending began increasing sharply after 1999, and is expected to reach a planned expenditures of 8.43 percent of GDP in 2010.
HM Treasury 2012

Its the best thing we ever did..when we set up the NHS..its a free service for all...its also great value for money...

The National Health Service or NHS is the publicly funded healthcare system in England. It is both the largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It is able to function in the way that it does because it is primarily funded through the general taxation system, in a similar fashion to the funding model for fire departments, police departments, and primary schools. The system provides healthcare to anyone normally legally resident in England, and also any other part of the United Kingdom (should a person from another UK area be travelling in England, for example), with almost all services free at the point of use for all such people.

The idea of the NHS being free at the point of use is contained in its core principles from the original NHS set-up, which are non-negotiable at their root but have variously been open to some interpretation over the years. In practice, "free at the point of use" normally means that anyone legitimately fully registered with the system (i.e. in possession of an NHS number), including UK citizens and legal immigrants, can access the full breadth of critical and non-critical medical care without any out-of-pocket payment of any kind. Some specific NHS services are fee-for-service: since 1948, patients have been charged for services associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and aspects of long-term care. However, these charges are often lower than equivalent services provided by a private health care provider.

In addition to the range of medical services available to legal residents and citizens of the UK, the NHS also provides free emergency care to those within UK borders, regardless of their legal status or national origin. People of questionable legal status or a different national origin who do not have the legal right to be in the UK long-term — including legitimate travellers and tourists from abroad — are not entitled to the full NHS, but are entitled to emergency care in an accident and emergency department without having to pay.

The NHS has further agreed a formal constitution which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the NHS, its staff, and users of the service and makes additional non-binding pledges regarding many key aspects of its operations

The English NHS is controlled by the UK government through the Department of Health (DH), which takes political responsibility for the service. Parliament has devolved management locally to ten Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs), which oversee all NHS operations, particularly the Primary Care Trusts, in their areas. These are coterminous with the nine Government Office Regions for the most part, with the South East region split into South East Coast and South Central SHAs.
There are a number of types of regional NHS trust:
NHS primary care trusts (PCTs), administer primary care and public health. On 1 October 2006 the number of PCTs was reduced from 303 to 152 in an attempt to bring services closer together and cut costs. PCTs oversee 29,000 GPs and 18,000 NHS dentists. In addition, they commission services from other NHS Trusts and from the private and voluntary sectors, provide primary care in their locations, and oversee such matters as primary and secondary prevention, vaccination administration and control of epidemics. PCTs control 80 per cent of the total NHS budget
NHS hospital trusts and NHS foundation trusts administer hospitals, treatment centres and specialist care in around 1,600 NHS hospitals (some trusts run between 2 and 8 different hospital sites)

NHS ambulance services trusts
NHS care trusts, providing both health and social care services
NHS mental health services trusts, specialising in managing and treating mental illness, including by the use of involuntary commitment powers
Some services are provided at a national level:
www.nhs.uk is the primary public-facing NHS website, providing comprehensive official information on services, treatments, conditions, healthy living and current health topics
NHS Direct provides telephone and email support services
NHS special health authorities provide various types of services

by Sponsored content