The Real Mitt Romney

[infinite monkey]

Alas poor Paul Hall! I knew him, Horatio.

And you're no Paul Hall.

[BigV]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...ident.html.csp


The Real Mitt Romney.

Whatever you want him to be, he'll be that for you. And the next guy gets the same deal. As long as each person promises to pay with a vote. He's open to all comers... If you've got the dime, he's got the time.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.

One more time:

Your post in #363:

"Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation."

Is incorrect.

The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.

It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.

Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.


Your post in #389:

"The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation."

That's incorrect, obviously.

Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...s/glossary.htm

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Alas poor Paul Hall! I knew him, Horatio.

And you're no Paul Hall.

Obviously, I'm not Paul Hall. Paul was absolutely brilliant, but unfortunately, he was also very much aware of it, and sometimes used it in an unwise manner.

If you believe I'm somebody else on this forum, you need to re-think that idea.

[BigV]

You're being deliberately obtuse in your conversation with cyber wolf

[ZenGum]

*meta-post*

This thread has been pretty good, mostly on the issues, mostly civil, occasionally amusing, and - especially for furriners like me - quite educational in seeing the current US politics play out.

Lately, things have been getting a bit snarky. How about we all take a deep breath and just remember, what ever it is that you're defending, the other guy is just someone being wrong on the internet. It's not worth getting all het up over.

And I'd also like to offer Adak the "Alamo Award*", for sticking to his (her?) position despite being seriously outnumbered and (from my point of view) outargued.

*I just invented this. And I was considering the "Little Big Horn Award".

Play nice, now, folks.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

You're being deliberately obtuse in your conversation with cyber wolf

Yes, I know. When the Liberal is wrong, and the Conservative calls him on it, the Conservative is always being<fill in the negative behavior here>

But I gave him facts straight from the gov't, and the link to most of it, so that's all I can do.

I'm sticking with my argument for one simple reason. In my several decades as an adult, I've seen both liberal and conservative Presidents, city councilmen, county supervisors, federal and state congressmen, governors, etc.

And I've noticed that when these politicians are smart Conservatives, the area of their control, thrives and prospers.

When the Liberals are in control, we have a terrible time of it. Witness San Diego. My town. When our Liberal City Council ran things, we were nearly forced into bankruptcy. The New York Times coined our city "Enron by the Sea".

Three San Diego mayors later, we're still trying to get a handle on how to fix the mess the Liberals made - because it's just that bad, and of course, we still have some Liberals in power here.

Contrast that, with the San Diego County Conservative gov't. They have a surplus! Things can get done in the County. Meanwhile, we have City water pipes that just explode and flood the stores and the homes, because they can't afford to replace the old water pipes, like they should have.

Conservatism WORKS. Liberalism FAILS. You can see it in every liberal nation, state, county, or city.

As Margaret Thatcher famously remarked:
"Socialism only works until the money runs out"

A Liberal government, is a BIG government. It has to be so it can do everything that Liberals want done. And the gov't - all of it, rides on your back, and pays it's way, by taking $$$ from your wallet. Your freedoms get more and more tightly constrained.

As the gov't takes more control, you lose. The gov't is not your friend, they are your protector, but they are also a FIST, that can pound you or I, right into the ground. Your job, your business, your home, your car, your everything - they control with the force of law.

Here's an example from New Mexico:
The people are being hard hit by wildfires, and a lot of the land is owned by the feds. Locals want to remove dead trees which are leaning over high voltage electric lines. So does the power company.

But the US Forest Service won't allow it. Eventually, the dead tree falls against the high voltage line, and starts another wild fire. But now the Forest Service doesn't want to put out the fire. They want the fire to "meander" around, and re-introduce wildfires into the forest.

As a result of this policy by the US Forest Service, New Mexico residents have tens of thousands of acres of more fires sweep through the state, uncontrolled, every Summer.

If you'd like to hear the full discourse on the topic straight from the New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce, you can d/l it from here:

You want Oct. 19th, H2 segment.
http://tunein.com/radio/The-Roger-He...k-Show-p20611/


See if you REALLY want the gov't running more of your life.

BTW, the Feds were supposed to give a lot of Western lands, back to the states, after they had their federal infrastructure set up.

They did that in the Eastern states, but never GOT AROUND to doing it, in the Western states. Rep. Pearce lays it out for you in the audio file.

Imagine that!

[DanaC]

This is quite an interesting assessment of Romney. To me. Bear in mind I really don't know much about him or the political mileu to which he belongs. It's more balanced than a lot of the stuff I've seen lately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us...ic.html?ref=us


[eta] I haven't read that last post in full, but I just scanned down and the name Margeret Thatcher jumped out at me. I gotta say that was an unpleasant thing to happen.

[Adak]

Margaret may not be popular with you, but the Falkland Islanders are QUITE fond of her! She stood strong when they were suddenly attacked and overrun by Argentina. She also is one of the reasons that millions of people are free today from Communist rule, in Eastern Europe. She's turning over in her grave, now that Socialism has eroded your budget to the extent that you have ZERO aircraft carriers, but that's Socialism for you. If you like Socialism, you wouldn't like M.T., and I'm sure it was very uncomfortable having her as your Prime Minister. Thatcher and Socialism would not be a good mix.

The fact that she had the backbone that few men have; to stand up against the Communists and the invading Argentinians. Well, she was very special, and very well liked by Conservatives.

[DanaC]

Well, obviously some people liked her.

And, really...socialism has eroded our budget? Give me a break. Successive governments, 'left' and right have continued the privatisation of our public services and whole sale sell off of national assets, at a rate much faster and deeper than anything Margeret Thatcher would have tried for.

The difference is that under the current and recent governments, the privatisation has been couched in terminology which, by your reckoning may well sound socialist. Don't be fooled.

[Adak]

Do you see that one of the reasons privatization is making a comeback, is that the efficiency it brings is badly needed?

Of course, privatization is just another word for the private sector: ie., Conservative marketplace, ie.; Capitalism.

That's what I mean by Conservatism works. It runs at an efficiency Socialism can only dream of. When people are more rewarded for taking risks, and working hard - they're more willing to take risks, and work hard. It's common sense, it's Conservatism, and it works very well. You have more freedom, You have more choices, and You have more responsibility.

The gov't doesn't pay for your birth control or your gas, You do. The gov't doesn't take nearly as much from your paycheck, You do.

There is an undeniable beauty to it.

[DanaC]

You misunderstood my post. Privatisation isn't 'making a come back' in the UK. We've never stepped away from it. It didn't end with Thatcher, it didn't even end with the Major government. It continued apace, through Labour and now Conservative-Liberal coalition governments.

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by Adak

Margaret...She's turning over in her grave...

A pleasant thought.

[DanaC]

lol I didn't even spot that.

Adak, Thatch is still alive.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

A pleasant thought.

Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lord
your soul to keep
I think I'll be going before we fold our arms
and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life
could be so cheap
'Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They'll stand there laughing and tramp the
dirt down