yes yes...we know

But if you think a Romney presidency would be no different than an Obama presidency I'd say you're either being too selective or too broad.

I'm sure they won't have any problems highlighting their differences in the debates.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

He obviously agrees and utilizes it quite frequently, so he's never going to change it. I'm not on Obama's side, I'm just not on Romney's side.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Romney also got over $800,000 last year doing interviews and things like that.

I think John Stewart says it nicely.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pain-capital ... x-returns/

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

SATW -
You brought up a bunch of regurgitated talking points, straight out of a left wing campaign play book. To say the rich pay less in taxes is so far and away the direct OPPOSITE of true, it concerns me that many in the general voting population actually believe this. It's like bizarro world, and ironically you have chosen to believe this without reading up on the facts, in contrast to your complaints about others.

PSP -
Romney has been personally pro-life, but will govern with respect and no intention of changing Roe vs Wade. His stance has genuinely changed with life experience over two decades, but he's never wavered in how he would govern on that issue. Would you rather have someone that never changes their mind, even slightly view a topic differently, over the course of their life - an idealogue? Besides, abortion is another litmus test issue for some that has no actual bearing on a presidential term. I don't even know why people ask about abortion during election campaigns anymore.

As for enemy combatants...during WWI, WWII, Korea, etc, if you were captured on the battle field engaging in war there was no jury that needed to confirm your enemy status. Terrorism is a different animal, antiquated laws governing war don't address terrorists, but it really shouldn't matter. A Nazi soldier would be detained without trial unless suspected of a war crime or released upon cease fire or other agreement. Should a terrorist be treated differently just because he's not acting under authority of an enemy nation, even if he's a US citizen but still engaging US soldiers overseas? A domestic criminal court setting is not appropriate for an overseas war matter. Dem or Repub, let's take the stance that laws governing war, war crimes, and rules of engagement need to be updated instead of forcing square, old and non-applicable ones into a round hole.

B&Y -
I'll reiterate what XC said...Romney and every other person that pays capital gains tax at 15% already paid full income tax on the money that was originally earned and then used for investment. Why is that demonized while the poor (sorry but true - rife with lazy bastards that simply leech of the gov't tit) get a free f-ing pass and whine about "fair share"? His comment about not caring about the poor was about tax reform. The poor don't need tax reform because THEY DON'T PAY TAXES. Biggest point - raising tax on capital gains won't even amount to a drop in the bucket of the national debt, nor will raising income tax on the wealthy. IT WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING, except maybe all the "fair share" bs I have to keep hearing about.

None of these comments, aside from the useless abortion topic, are really about Romney personally though. They're about Repubs in general, and I get that and really don't care to get in a Dem vs Repub argument. If you're not a diehard Dem or a big social conservative, maybe there isn't much to dislike about Romney after all...lol. These days though, there's not much room for moderates.

You're talking about enemy combatants on the battle field in a war zone.

NDAA allows the feds to arrest and detain American citizens within our own country for suspicion of terrorism. That's completely different from what you've outlined above.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Well, isnt the sticking point that this 'terror suspect' would not be entitled to due process? Otherwise, what exactly is the problem? What if we have homegrown terrorists, you want the government to be powerless to stop them?

Where can you find that information? I thought he only released his taxes for 2011.

Sorry...the provisions in NDAA you're talking about have yet to be used, as far as I'm aware. On one hand, it could be a tool to detain a terrorist if somehow their actions did not fall under domestic criminal law. On the other hand, it could be used to simply send someone away for a while without trial. That's not good at all if abused, obviously. Even if used properly, I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario where a terrorist's actions would not be covered under US criminal law anyway. So I think those provisions are both possibly unconstitutional and unnecessary. I'm wondering what possible loopholes, if any, the US gov't faced over the last 10 years in addressing the capabilities of "homegrown" terrorists. There may very well be a logical counter argument...idk. Republicans are mostly in favor of repealing those provisions though, so I assume a House, Senate, and POTUS controlled by Repubs would repeal them while leaving the rest of NDAA intact.

90% of people in all religions ignore a great portion of their faith's doctrine's. The other 10% is what helps them get over that they really could give a shit about their fellow human beings for the most part. I don't think Jesus felt that the CEO should be arriving in a Jaguar, while the janitor walks in the cold, even after considering the fact that the guy is a noble 'job provider'. I think Jesus had a whole different plan altogether. I don't think hypocrisy runs any deeper than it does in religion. Maybe in politics.


As far as Mitt goes, he crumbles under pressure. Anytime a little criticism is thrown his way he gets flaky and then turns to arrogance. Not an easy sell, because it doesn't pass the sniff test. He will also say ANYTHING, and doesn't care how it sounds or if it contradicts his previous position. Another hard sell. Hilarious that he thinks Obama is out of touch with Americans. Ya Mitt, all the 'safety net' people I know have bunches of friends named Mitt, who are billionaire's. This guy is only going to get support from conservatives who refuse to vote any other way, and the independents who have bought the notion that Obama has already half ruined the country and only needs another 4 to finish it off(exactly how I felt with Bush, but I was right). The truth is the jobs market and economy are headed in the right direction. I can't see anyone who voted for Obama last time voting for Romney, therefore I see no recipe for victory. They'd have to hope for a poor turn out to win.

Governors and Presidents don't write tax code, so I'm not sure how that's an argument.


It must be nice to have such certainty in your convictions.

Huh?
Because "you can't see it" means nothing.
Obama beat McCain with 52.9% of the popular vote.
Right now, Romney and Obama are both polling around 46% nationally.
No President since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%
Obama's net approval rating is a -2.
The direction of the country average is -34
Republicans have the enthusiasm advantage.

There's your recipe for victory.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...