|
|
On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days?
Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now?
EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say...
|
On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days? Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now? EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say...
Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2.
of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2.
I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though.
|
On August 19 2012 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NYTimes article: Show nested quote + The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments. Source
Call the voucher system risky, and I have trouble grasping what hastening medicare insolvency is. I get the whole, "Neener neener, well your plan is WORSE" response. But really, the whole robbing hospitals of what they charge patients in order to introduce reforms to the system is not an efficiency-creating enterprise. It's a mechanism for causing hospitals to drop medicare patients, and the remainder who take them count on passing the increased costs onto the nonmedicare patients. Reform comes from giving the patient the power to see the costs involved, have hospitals compete in prices for offering general care, and unravel the tangle of regulation governing the relationship between insurers and medical care. Vouchers are a means to the end with that, but not the only one. To their credit, the education voucher system has shown success in increasing the quality of schools by offering parents a ticket out of poor schools they were previously forced to send their kids to.
As for the current provisions currently harmful to the system, and many more in comparison to the few that may be valuable reforms, though the money only served to reduce the plan's price tag. You don't pour through the 2700 pages and find which 50-page sections aren't so bad, any more than you buy a fruit cake and chew around the nuts. First you repeal the sucker, and write a new bill from scratch going from good reform to good reform.
|
On August 19 2012 11:01 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days? Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now? EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say... Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2. of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2. I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though.
It sounds like what you are really trying to say is that you agree with me:
On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 01:36 Meta wrote:
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.
For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.
But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves. War is bad. Tyrany is also bad....Not all wars are right. But some are.
In which case, I'm not sure why you are arguing rather than agreeing.
War is bad. War is evil. But sometimes it is necessary and we should praise and honor those who go voluntarily so we don't have to see it for ourselves. Now, from our perspective, its our responsibility to ensure that we don't send those good men and women to wars that are not necessary.
|
A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp:
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
Source
EDIT: Also found this very funny: Source
+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”
|
United States43675 Posts
On August 19 2012 11:23 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 11:01 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days? Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now? EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say... Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2. of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2. I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though. It sounds like what you are really trying to say is that you agree with me: Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 01:36 Meta wrote:
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.
For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.
But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves. War is bad. Tyrany is also bad....Not all wars are right. But some are. In which case, I'm not sure why you are arguing rather than agreeing. War is bad. War is evil. But sometimes it is necessary and we should praise and honor those who go voluntarily so we don't have to see it for ourselves. Now, from our perspective, its our responsibility to ensure that we don't send those good men and women to wars that are not necessary.
Should we praise and honour the soldiers who the enemy sends to fight so that their civilians don't have to? They're making the same sacrifice. What if they're in 'the wrong'?
|
On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Show nested quote +Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
Source
That's to be expected. Ryan energizes and excites many people who would otherwise not be convinced by Romney but also alienates a mass of people as well.
I wonder though, what impact political advertising has upon Presidential elections. Given that both Obama and Romney are high profile enough (and their views on the 'important issues' of the election seem pretty clear to the public as well), it seems that a majority of the 'public battle' takes place through the field of news outlets. Quotes, promises, and other actions that are broadcast by news outlets seem to have a far greater impact upon how people vote as compared to advertisements made by either candidate.
|
On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.
do you know what a century is?
|
On August 19 2012 11:50 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. do you know what a century is?
Approximately 100 soldiers!
(by "centuries of prosperity" he clearly means military units that bring us wealth from overseas)
|
On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Show nested quote +Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”
If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore.
|
On August 19 2012 11:01 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days? Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now? EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say... Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2. of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2. I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though.
Unfortunately, you are simply wrong.
The world today is far, far more prosperous in virtually every objective metric of economic progress than it was in 1939. Granted, that prosperity is not spread equally, nor did all portions of the world benefit in equal amounts, and yes there are some locations in the world that have decreased in relative wealth depending when you want to start the time frame, but the fact remains that the world was experienced a remarkably peaceful period of prosperity post-WW2.
Casualty figures for conflicts post-WW2 are vastly reduced. I'd prefer not to be crass, but 60,000 American dead in Vietnam, for example, is pocket change compared to the titanic conflicts the world saw previously.
Far less people are dying to due to interstate conflict, far more people have relatively far more money, and overall the world is orders of magnitude more prosperous than pre-WW2.
The conflicts you mention are relatively minor, in all honesty. The important thing is to judge all of this on a relative and not absolute scale.
|
On August 19 2012 11:50 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. do you know what a century is?
We have had very good properity since the revolutionary war. And we haven't been under any real tyrany during that time. WWII is another example of a war that was "right" for us to fight even if it hasn't been centuries yet. But maybe you won't accept that until 2045.
So for the next 33 years you can just continue to think it would have been better to lay down and be conquered by Nazis, if that is what your point is...
|
On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore.
Ahh, so its only OK to be rich at certain times. Especially if the centerpiece of your re-election campaign is "Don't vote for my opponent because he is rich". Oh and please ignore the fact that I am also a millionaire.
The fact is that Obama is trying to make Romney's money the centerpiece of his campaign and those who agree with him (even those in the media) try to help him out with the strategy he has taken.
|
See? Instead of politics we bicker about clothing. go democracy!
|
On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore.
Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments.
|
On August 19 2012 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NYTimes article: Show nested quote + The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments. Source
You do realize that we spent several pages going over this in detail, right? Is it really necessary or even useful to post an editorial that is nothing more than the liberal talking points on the issue?
As for the editorial itself, if this is the best that democrats can up with, they're fucked. I'm not going to rehash everything that has already been said. However, have democrats already forgotten how easily they turned public opinion against the Ryan plan for proposing Medicare cuts? They are absolutely delusional if they think that they are going to escape the ire of senior voters for actually enacting the cuts that Ryan only proposed, and which are not part of Romney's plan.
|
On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments.
I'm just going to go ahead and repeat something you said with my emphasis added: Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady.
Admittedly this is all rather silly, but at least make a proper argument.
|
On August 19 2012 13:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NYTimes article: The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments. Source You do realize that we spent several pages going over this in detail, right? Is it really necessary or even useful to post an editorial that is nothing more than the liberal talking points on the issue? As for the editorial itself, if this is the best that democrats can up with, they're fucked. I'm not going to rehash everything that has already been said. However, have democrats already forgotten how easily they turned public opinion against the Ryan plan for proposing Medicare cuts? They are absolutely delusional if they think that they are going to escape the ire of senior voters for actually enacting the cuts that Ryan only proposed, and which are not part of Romney's plan.
You're not going to go over the topic again because you have already jumped to another subject, and already in the process of jumping to yet another subject. As for the article Ryan and Romney are still attacking Obama on Medicare while Romney still refuses to release anything but minor details of his plans.
|
On August 19 2012 13:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 13:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:NYTimes article: The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments. Source You do realize that we spent several pages going over this in detail, right? Is it really necessary or even useful to post an editorial that is nothing more than the liberal talking points on the issue? As for the editorial itself, if this is the best that democrats can up with, they're fucked. I'm not going to rehash everything that has already been said. However, have democrats already forgotten how easily they turned public opinion against the Ryan plan for proposing Medicare cuts? They are absolutely delusional if they think that they are going to escape the ire of senior voters for actually enacting the cuts that Ryan only proposed, and which are not part of Romney's plan. You're not going to go over the topic again because you have already jumped to another subject, and already in the process of jumping to yet another subject. As for the article Ryan and Romney are still attacking Obama on Medicare while Romney still refuses to release anything but minor details of his plans.
If I remember correctly, I think that Romney said that the details on his plan would be out in time for the debates. Having taken Ryan on his ticket, he of course now needs time to do a merger of the 2 plans so they are running on the same thing. There should be plenty of time to debate the plan especially since October is really the most important month of the election.
|
On August 19 2012 13:07 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments. I'm just going to go ahead and repeat something you said with my emphasis added: Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady. Admittedly this is all rather silly, but at least make a proper argument.
You do realize that neither Hillary nor Laura Bush dressed like that, right?
I really don't care how anyone dresses. I just find the hypocrisy of slamming Ann Romney's clothing while ignoring or even praising Michelle Obama's to be amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
