- This topic has 23 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(Copying Patti’s response to my polital statements.)
let’s see how you feel when they take away your medicare and social security. I’m so sick of right-wingnuts in Washington, D.C. and everywhere else for that matter. And, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let’s not turn this into a political comments board. There are plenty of them out there that people can go to to express their views. I hate to see these obnoxious debates on my soap opera message board. Besides, I thought the topic of this post was Hurricane Isaac!!!!
Why doesn’t someone open a special topic on politics …. what’s wrong with that? Then I don’t have to waste my time opening and reading posts that will undoubtedly piss more people off than have them enjoy it.
(Bonbon’s response.)
So you (Patti) don’t have to hurt your eyes or waste your time by reading political posts, I have done as you asked and created a new thread. I was unaware that political comments were not allowed on this "off-topic board" where we also discuss other things like health issues, TV shows, movies, books, prayer requests, etc. (There are ALSO boards out there for THOSE topics but we wouldn’t be discussing them with our friends HERE now would we?) Would someone please let me know if there are topics other than politics that also will "undoubtedly piss more people off than have them enjoy it" and we should avoid posting here?
I find it rather hypocritical that you complain about this and yet you respond in your first sentence doing exactly what your are chastizing me for. I took that as you saying, "I don’t what to read what you have to write but first I want to get MY opinion in last."
And, Patti, "obnoxious debates?" On "my soap opera message board?" Really! And out threads, especially here, frequently stray from the original topic. I’ve never seen you complain about any of them.
Since you seem to think I made this a "political debate" topic, I was not encouraging debate of any kind, nor did I read any debating until your message, I was just stating MY opinion and one person agreed with me, not much of a debate. So, since you chose to do the debating…hmmm. I would think you were smarter to fall for the rhetoric being bantied about regarding losing Social Security and Medicare. Come on! Can you imagine what kind of chaos that would throw this country into? That’s NOT going to happen and is only a scare tactic being used to try to discredit those horrible "right-wingnuts in Washington, D.C."
I would really like to remind anyone who falls for what they are now seeing on TV ads that a president CANNOT make a law. They can’t cut SS or Medicare. They CANNOT do away with Roe v. Wade or outlaw abortions. That’s what we have the congress for. Go back to Civics 101 and you will learn that only congress can make laws so it’s probably more important for who you elect for congress than it is for president.
They both say whatever they think will get them elected. I’ve been through Mitt in charge once and wouldn’t want to see it again.
certainly gave an entertaining speech last night. I didn’t like the way he delivered it though as if he wasn’t a very good speaker. Having been the mayor of Carmel, CA and an actor, I’m sure he could have done better than that. I think he was "acting" the whole thing. But I loved it. He’s got a great sense of humor. We talked to him once briefly in The Hog’s Breath, the inn that he owned in Carmel and he’s got a great sense of humor. I loved the way he "talked" to Obama there.
I hated how the big three network correspondents had nothing positive to say about any of the speeches, Romneys, Rubio’s and Eastwood’s. What happen to the media staying apolitical? If I want to hear bipartisanship commentary, I’ll listen to MSNBC or FOX News Network.
Watching convention speeches is something I NEVER do but was first interested in hearing Anne Romney and then Rubio so watched the rest of it too. I’m glad I didn’t miss Eastwood’s. I thought Romney’s was heavily laden with family and patriosm as opposed to concentrating on what he’d do as president.
and I likely wouldn’t have tuned in had I not heard he was going to “speak.” Yes, he was awkward and stumbling but he tossed out his prepared speech and delivered everything off the cuff. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
And yes, could the network correspondants be any more obvious in their anti-Republican stance? It wouldn’t be so bad if they practiced equal opportunity biais, but the media in general is blatantly liberal-minded.
I too would have liked to see Romney focus on how he’s going to change things in DC but supposedly he was worried that the American people needed to know more about him at this point. If Mitt wants to win he’s got to harp on what’s wrong with the country and how he’s the guy who’s going to right the ship. And act like a leader.and delete the reasons I posted so as not to cause trouble on the board. I will say, look up his record in MA and note that he quit being the governor before his term was up.
because he was running for president. I really don’t know him that well and was just wondering what it is some people don’t like about him.
I don’t think you will cause any trouble for expressing your opinions. What causes problems in a forum like this is when you start bashing other people’s opinions which I think is very disrespectful. I think we’re all pretty good here in that respect.
My best friend is very liberal (I’m conservative if you haven’t guessed by now) and we frequently have discussions about both men but never argue about them. We both have very strong feelings but we also respect’s each others’ without saying there is anything wrong about them. She’s like me though and is interested in hearing why people who disagree with her do so.
I have found that just about everybody I talk to that is an Obama supporter (OR, Romney non-suppporter) has such varied reasons. I find that fascinating. However, if you prefer not giving your reasons, I respect that also.
1. He promised jobs when he was elected governor – it didn’t happen unless you count the 2 people he hired for government jobs that paid beyond what anyone else was paid for the same job. He said since he and the Lt. gov weren’t taking salaries he should be able to hire these 2 but their salaries were more than he and she would have been paid as gov/lt. gov. We lost more jobs during his time and many went overseas.
2. He said, "No new taxes" – yes we didn’t get taxes but we got "user fees" for everything that weren’t able to be deducted from your taxes.
3. When he left the office, the state was in the beginning of the Big Dig mess which he should have been paying attention to when he was in office. We’re still paying for this corrupt mess now.
4. We do have "Romney Care" which he was so proud of until he discovered the rest of the country didn’t want the healthcare that was mandated in MA.
5. As to leaving before his term was up – he had ‘promised’ before being elected that he would be there for the whole time. If he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have included that.
As I said, they say what they think you want to hear/promises don’t mean anything. I’d rather someone not promise what they can’t guarantee they will deliver. His beliefs on social issues are not mine either.
Thanks. I haven’t paid much attention to what goes on in Mass. But, you’ve got to admit, a lot of what you mentioned applies to most politicians. Especially the part about promising something they don’t deliver. I believe ALL of them make campaign promises because it’s what people want to hear.
I agree about all politicians making campaign promises they don’t deliver. Part of that is they make promises that are beyond their ability to control or put into effect. The government is set up great with checks and balances to make sure one person doesn’t have too much power but in the end it just makes things harder to get passed through because the parties, not the men argure too much and have their own agenda so they poo poo anything the other party submits without giving it any serious thought.
It doesn’t matter what you call yourself, Democrat or Republican, we’re screwed either way. We’ve had Obama almost 4 years so we know what we’re getting whether we like it or not With Romney we have no idea what we’re going to be getting ourself into.
I’m not a democrat or republican but vote for the person I believe will do the best job and honestly right now niether one is looking good to me. I want a candidate that will look out for the best interests or the working class and not the people or companies with the deepest pockets. I want a congress that knows what it’s like to work to put food on the table and not ones that come from long lines of politicians and never really had to work a day in their life for what they have.
we ought to eliminate the parties but I don’t know how elections would work then, I mean, getting the candidates on the ballot. Politics has just become so complex I don’t think it CAN be reformed. We have created a monster.
and I enjoyed it! He did seem a little unsure of what he wanted to say; but, then again, he was doing it all without notes or a Teleprompter. I had heard such horrendous critiques of his presentation that I was almost afraid to watch it because I really like the guy and always respected his work. Then I watched it and thought he did pretty well.
totally eliminated so there aren’t special interests involved. I’d give each candidate a certain amount of equal airtime/newspaper ad/etc. But not this constant who can raise the most with extravagant parties. Come to think of it, if both sides took all the money that was raised and put it toward the national debt, we’d be in a better place! lol
It seems to be the person who can raise the most campaign funds is the one who gets the nomination. And I strongly object to the president spending so much of OUR money campaigning. Just taking out Air Force One costs an enormous amount of money…in the MILLIONS. I understand he has to campaign but it just seems that the country suffers during all that time he’s out stumping and not doing his job…plus…doing it on our dime.
I saw a special on TV one night about what it costs the taxpayers when the president takes a trip. I had NO idea of the enormous expense. (I’m not talking about Obama, although he seems to do it excessively, but any president.) With all the pre-planning, checking out locations, routes, food preperation, traffic control for the motorcades (the entire route is shut down), hotels, all the secret service personnel, then add the cost shipping, staffing, and maintaining all his the cars, lodgings (always very opulent), food for everybody (including press), and of course not just one but two huge 747s and several helicopters. Everytime he goes somewhere there are six helicopters and two identical AF Ones dispatched so nobody knows just which one he is on.
I believe the president is entitled to this while on official business but not for vacations, personal trips, or campaigning…NOR letting the wife and family use AF One when they decide to go somewhere without him. They should pay their own way then.
presidents can only be in office for one year – no campaigning needed. The problem is also that we live in a ‘global’ world where the president has to meet world leaders both at the White House and at their homes in foreign countries. Since the president is paid so little for the job, I doubt any but the ultra wealthy could afford to be president under the conditions where they have to pay for all the extras. You have to admit that the president’s salary is extremely below that of corporation CEOs and even ‘board members’ of these corporations. When a board member receives ‘compensation’ in the millions and the President doesn’t get close to that, something is off.
As to the wife and family using Air Force One, technically if he isn’t on it, it isn’t AFO but just a regular Air Force plane. They have to have the same security as the president does so unless they only stay where he does, it’s going to happen. Of course you could have a single guy with no family connections – rare but possible. The solution could be that for the 4 years, the president and his family can’t leave the White House and can only go to Camp David for vacations. If you think it was expensive for the Obamas’ vacations wait to see how much will have to be spent if Romney and Ryan get in as you are going to have all their homes (not sure on the Ryans’ but the Romneys have at least 3) having to be ‘outfitted’ for secret service etc and that would really cost big bucks!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.