Truly Undecided...

[BirdOPrey5]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Throughout this election I have been torn. I voted for W, twice... What I saw when I looked at George W Bush was man who I believed truly loved this country and truly cared about the American people. I do NOT see that when I look at Mitt Romney. I don't see it when I look at Obama either.

Throughout the election I was hoping either Herman Cain or Newt would have been the nominee.

What scares me about Romney is his refusal to go into detail on what tax deductions he will eliminate and for who. It's nice he wants to cut FEDERAL income taxes 20% but quite frankly cutting my federal income taxes 20% but eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid to the state would mean a net MASSIVE increase in my taxes- and as someone on a fixed income these days it would likely mean me having to sell my house and move away from all my friends and family to a cheaper state like Florida.

So until he cal tell me his plans, I don't see me voting for Romney.

But Obama- he was the President who pushed for in some case, or simply allowed in other cases, laws I consider completely unconstitutional to pass. I'd vote guilty on a jury to convict him of treason before I'd really vote for him for President.

I realize living in New York my state is going to Obama regardless of my vote, but I do consider the popular vote useful for sending a message of the people. I may just go Libertarian this year.

[jimnyc]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Excellent post!

I have to run and pick up my wife from the train, so I'll reply more later, and I'm sure others will chime in. Wanted to point out though, I know how you feel as a fellow New Yorker! I'm up here in Westchester. I also lived in Queens for awhile, on Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills, not far from the 71st and Continental stop. I know that's off topic, but I gotta run and wanted to reply about the New York thing. :beer:

[Kathianne]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Throughout this election I have been torn. I voted for W, twice... What I saw when I looked at George W Bush was man who I believed truly loved this country and truly cared about the American people. I do NOT see that when I look at Mitt Romney. I don't see it when I look at Obama either.

Throughout the election I was hoping either Herman Cain or Newt would have been the nominee.

What scares me about Romney is his refusal to go into detail on what tax deductions he will eliminate and for who. It's nice he wants to cut FEDERAL income taxes 20% but quite frankly cutting my federal income taxes 20% but eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid to the state would mean a net MASSIVE increase in my taxes- and as someone on a fixed income these days it would likely mean me having to sell my house and move away from all my friends and family to a cheaper state like Florida.

So until he cal tell me his plans, I don't see me voting for Romney.

But Obama- he was the President who pushed for in some case, or simply allowed in other cases, laws I consider completely unconstitutional to pass. I'd vote guilty on a jury to convict him of treason before I'd really vote for him for President.

I realize living in New York my state is going to Obama regardless of my vote, but I do consider the popular vote useful for sending a message of the people. I may just go Libertarian this year.

As someone who's been devastated by this economy, I will vote for Romney. I was rif'd from my teaching position in Spring 2010. I'm so seriously unemployed, I've had to sell my home in a short sale. Being in my later 50's, severely hard-of-hearing, it's unlikely that I'll find decent employment in teaching or any field, in spite of 3 BA's and a MS. Can I do the job? Undoubtedly. I've been subbing since fall 2010, I'm booked for the next month, by teacher/department requests.

What Obama has done with Lockheed and Boeing, regarding NOT notifying their employees of likely layoffs within 60 days notice, is unconscionable. Using both threats and promises, encouraging them to break federal law. Then there's his end runs around Congress, which they do not fight. Couple this with the cover ups in both DOD and DOJ, I really am amazed there hasn't been more hue and cry from even alternative media.

I will vote for Romney, he may not have been my first, second, or even third choice, but he'll be better than Obama. I actually was impressed last night with his argument that he won't go into specifics on plans, for the simple reason that he would need input from Congressional leadership of both parties, to find some common ground. He had to have done what he said in MA, he couldn't have ended up with 'Romneycare' without the Democrat legislature in both houses. I'll take that answer.

[aboutime]

Easy answer to the Undecided.

No American who has read, and understands the purposes of our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution, per the Founding Fathers.....should vote for any candidate that DOES NOT Obey, and Follow the Oath of Office, and our Constitution.

It is an easy choice...IF the Undecided are having trouble deciding WHICH candidate they prefer.

We all are keenly aware...after More than Four Years....Mister Obama has Ignored, and Disobeyed both His Oath, and the Constitution he is sworn to protect.

Those two reasons alone should be all any American Citizen needs to recognize, and determine for WHOM you will vote.

[jimnyc]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Throughout this election I have been torn. I voted for W, twice... What I saw when I looked at George W Bush was man who I believed truly loved this country and truly cared about the American people. I do NOT see that when I look at Mitt Romney. I don't see it when I look at Obama either.

Throughout the election I was hoping either Herman Cain or Newt would have been the nominee.

What scares me about Romney is his refusal to go into detail on what tax deductions he will eliminate and for who. It's nice he wants to cut FEDERAL income taxes 20% but quite frankly cutting my federal income taxes 20% but eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid to the state would mean a net MASSIVE increase in my taxes- and as someone on a fixed income these days it would likely mean me having to sell my house and move away from all my friends and family to a cheaper state like Florida.

So until he cal tell me his plans, I don't see me voting for Romney.

But Obama- he was the President who pushed for in some case, or simply allowed in other cases, laws I consider completely unconstitutional to pass. I'd vote guilty on a jury to convict him of treason before I'd really vote for him for President.

I realize living in New York my state is going to Obama regardless of my vote, but I do consider the popular vote useful for sending a message of the people. I may just go Libertarian this year.

Alright, for a better answer, at least somewhat. Like I said, I feel the pain of being a New Yorker knowing the state will go Dem all the way anyway, but I still won't sit back and still won't assist Obama get back into office. The thought of him running this country without having to worry about an election scares me. Personality and likeness aside, he's simply done a horrible job on almost every front. But the economy is the main factor that makes me feel he needs to go. He's raised welfare like 60% or more and has increased debt by like 6 trillion dollars. Then we have unemployment in the shitter for as long as I can remember. $4.15 for the cheap gas here in NY, and probably worse for you in the NYC/Queens area! The economy is either failing or stagnant at times. They've had the entire office at times too, congress and all, and can't even get a damn budget passed. He can't get his own side to get things done let alone work across the aisle. And this is just the economy, don't get me started on foreign affairs and his apology tours and bowing tours. He's probably a nice guy when you sit and have a beer with him, but that should be in Chicago when someone more competent moves into the White House.

I would have preferred Newt won the primaries. Hell, my choice is still Fred Thompson from 2008! LOL If the Republicans can't move back more towards the conservative side over the upcoming years, I might find myself leaning away from the major parties myself. But I'm willing to give Mitt a chance, and I think Ryan was a fantastic choice for VP and I hope he'll have more than "Biden input" on the economy and other factors. I think he's extremely intelligent, as is Mitt on the business side. I also believe Mitt will repeal Ocrapocare if he can, which was such a robbery it's not even funny. "it's not a tax, it's a tax, no it's not" - and all of this coming from the party that promised us perhaps the most transparent administration ever, and is perhaps the most devious and hidden one ever.

With that said, I certainly wouldn't talk you out of voting libertarian. I don't think Mitt is another Ronald Reagan, but he's far from another do nothing like Obama at least!

[SassyLady]

Bird .... did you vote for Obama? If so, what level of detail did he provide about his plan before he was elected and how much of that detail has he realized over the last four years?

Romney has been successful at turn-arounds and what this country needs is a massive turn-around. To do a turn-around, one must get into the current workings of the entity and find out what the source of the problem is. Obama just wants to continue throwing money at the problem without finding out the source of the problem.

I am a business consultant .... and I never tell a business owner what "my" plan is until I've thoroughly studied his business. Then, based upon research and input from the owner and staff, together we come up with a plan. Sounds like that is the way Romney does business .... and I'm good with that.

One thing I can tell you ... Romney wants people to be more independent, which means they need jobs. Obama doesn't want people to be independent of the government. Independent citizens are harder to control if you are not providing their necessities of life.

[avatar4321]

I think Romney does care about the nation. I Think he made that obvious last night.

I know if i had his money id probably be relaxing instead of going throughout the nation trying to serve the people.

[SassyLady]

I think Romney does care about the nation. I Think he made that obvious last night.

I know if i had his money id probably be relaxing instead of going throughout the nation trying to serve the people.

Can I go with you wherever it is that you are going to relax? Please, please, please. :bow2:

[BirdOPrey5]

Bird .... did you vote for Obama? If so, what level of detail did he provide about his plan before he was elected and how much of that detail has he realized over the last four years?

Romney has been successful at turn-arounds and what this country needs is a massive turn-around. To do a turn-around, one must get into the current workings of the entity and find out what the source of the problem is. Obama just wants to continue throwing money at the problem without finding out the source of the problem.

I am a business consultant .... and I never tell a business owner what "my" plan is until I've thoroughly studied his business. Then, based upon research and input from the owner and staff, together we come up with a plan. Sounds like that is the way Romney does business .... and I'm good with that.

One thing I can tell you ... Romney wants people to be more independent, which means they need jobs. Obama doesn't want people to be independent of the government. Independent citizens are harder to control if you are not providing their necessities of life.

No I voted for McCain last time, but truth be told for the 2008 election I was single, employed, with a very good income, growing 401k, and was planning how I may take care of my parents one day down the road as they literally sacrificed everything for me and my sister when we were growing up.

Fast forward to now I endured a long coma, a longer illness, have been left unable stand or walk and unable to do the work I used to do, spend nearly every day in a hospital bed in my home, my dad has passed away and Mom is now taking care of ME again- my priorities are all different then they were in 2008.

I would vote for someone who I knew was great for this country even if it meant myself enduring harder times- but I won't make that sacrifice merely for the lesser of two evils.

[jimnyc]

Fast forward to now I endured a long coma, a longer illness, have been left unable stand or walk and unable to do the work I used to do, spend nearly every day in a hospital bed in my home, my dad has passed away and Mom is now taking care of ME again- my priorities are all different then they were in 2008.

I hate to post off topic 2x in the same thread, but that sounds horrible, and you have my sympathies for your loss, Joe. I lost my Mom in July of 2010. And while I feel like I just endured a horrible surgery with associated withdrawals from the medication after the fact, it was no way as serious as a coma or unable to stand or walk. I truly hope all is getting better for you and your health! And like you, my priorities have changed to, albeit perhaps in a different fashion. It took me 44yrs to realize it's time to grow up and take care of myself! Hang in there, buddy, and pop down below and post in the lounge area if you ever just wanna chat, we have some awesome members here that are great about being supportive and discussing issues about our lives.

-Jim

[fj1200]

I would vote for someone who I knew was great for this country even if it meant myself enduring harder times- but I won't make that sacrifice merely for the lesser of two evils.

Sorry about what you're going through but, tax policy wise especially, who is POTUS will have almost no effect at that level. BO's horrible policies are a macroeconomic (national) issue not the microeconomic (local) issue you're concerned about. The deductability issue you brought up in the OP, property taxes will always be deductible and very few people are actually affected by the interest deduction that I'd be surprised if it was an issue, the standard deduction is enough for most. And with the Real Estate lobby like it is, the deduction is either going nowhere or the standard deduction will increase to account for it being eliminated.

[gabosaurus]

I look at the election from a different angle. My husband and I are employed and financially secure.
As someone who works in the education field and has an 11 year old daughter, education is my number one priority.
A large portion of my family is Latino, so I am looks at immigration rights and reform (which neither candidate has addressed so far).
I also want a candidate who will pledge not to start stupid wars like GW Bush did. Our military involvement overseas (and the military hierarchy itself) must be scaled back to conform with other needs of our country.

At the present time, neither candidate impresses me. The more I read about the last debate, the more I am convinced that there was enough manure distributed to fertilize a small country. Was Obama too meek? (I remember Daddy Bush referred to that stance as "acting presidential.") Was Romney too aggressive? (Worked for Reagan, though).

Still got a month left to decide.

[fj1200]

As someone who works in the education field and has an 11 year old daughter, education is my number one priority.

Education isn't, or shouldn't be at least, a national issue.


A large portion of my family is Latino, so I am looks at immigration rights and reform (which neither candidate has addressed so far).

Illegal immigrants don't have (the same) rights as citizens. Are you concerned about US workers on the lower end of the wage spectrum?


I also want a candidate who will pledge not to start stupid wars like GW Bush did. Our military involvement overseas (and the military hierarchy itself) must be scaled back to conform with other needs of our country.

Is Johnson on your list then?


At the present time, neither candidate impresses me. The more I read about the last debate, the more I am convinced that there was enough manure distributed to fertilize a small country.

Did you look critically at your "myth" list?

[Abbey Marie]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Throughout this election I have been torn. I voted for W, twice... What I saw when I looked at George W Bush was man who I believed truly loved this country and truly cared about the American people. I do NOT see that when I look at Mitt Romney. I don't see it when I look at Obama either.

Throughout the election I was hoping either Herman Cain or Newt would have been the nominee.

What scares me about Romney is his refusal to go into detail on what tax deductions he will eliminate and for who. It's nice he wants to cut FEDERAL income taxes 20% but quite frankly cutting my federal income taxes 20% but eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid to the state would mean a net MASSIVE increase in my taxes- and as someone on a fixed income these days it would likely mean me having to sell my house and move away from all my friends and family to a cheaper state like Florida.

So until he cal tell me his plans, I don't see me voting for Romney.

But Obama- he was the President who pushed for in some case, or simply allowed in other cases, laws I consider completely unconstitutional to pass. I'd vote guilty on a jury to convict him of treason before I'd really vote for him for President.

I realize living in New York my state is going to Obama regardless of my vote, but I do consider the popular vote useful for sending a message of the people. I may just go Libertarian this year.

I grew up in the Bronx, so we were practically neighbors. ;)

I know exactly what you mean about George Bush. I felt the same thing about him. I saw integrity and a good soul. And I almost never see that in a politician. (I didn't see it in Newt, for example). The difference between us is, I see that also in Romney, and it has made me excited about him as our President.

As for Romney's plans, I would agree with Kathianne above. The plan will by necessity evolve when he deals with Congress. But we know where Romney is coming from, and that is a place of fiscal Conservatism. Not bordering on Socialist ideals.

Even more so, a 2 minute debate answer is not a great time to try to even outline complicated points. They can easily be misconstrued and odd sound bites may be used against you. Thirdly, I'll take Romney's not-fully fleshed out plan (if they in fact are not) over Obama's proven failed policies any day.

[Trigg]

I look at the election from a different angle. My husband and I are employed and financially secure.
As someone who works in the education field and has an 11 year old daughter, education is my number one priority.
A large portion of my family is Latino, so I am looks at immigration rights and reform (which neither candidate has addressed so far).
I also want a candidate who will pledge not to start stupid wars like GW Bush did. Our military involvement overseas (and the military hierarchy itself) must be scaled back to conform with other needs of our country.

At the present time, neither candidate impresses me. The more I read about the last debate, the more I am convinced that there was enough manure distributed to fertilize a small country. Was Obama too meek? (I remember Daddy Bush referred to that stance as "acting presidential.") Was Romney too aggressive? (Worked for Reagan, though).

Still got a month left to decide.

The most important thing I can advise you to do it ACTUALLY WATCH the next few debates. The talking heads leave out important points that are made and root for their guy.

The economy was the topic of the last debate and I think Romney did a VERY good job of laying out his plan. Of course that was never covered by the media.

Again, WATCH the next one. At least that way you are informed and not getting your info from someone elses perspective.

[aboutime]

I look at the election from a different angle. My husband and I are employed and financially secure.
As someone who works in the education field and has an 11 year old daughter, education is my number one priority.
A large portion of my family is Latino, so I am looks at immigration rights and reform (which neither candidate has addressed so far).
I also want a candidate who will pledge not to start stupid wars like GW Bush did. Our military involvement overseas (and the military hierarchy itself) must be scaled back to conform with other needs of our country.

At the present time, neither candidate impresses me. The more I read about the last debate, the more I am convinced that there was enough manure distributed to fertilize a small country. Was Obama too meek? (I remember Daddy Bush referred to that stance as "acting presidential.") Was Romney too aggressive? (Worked for Reagan, though).

Still got a month left to decide.


gabby. Based on nothing but your past contributions here, and bragging so much about how superior you obviously think you are over everyone else who contributes here. I would suggest you do all of us, and yourself a big favor by first. Educating yourself with real, honest facts. Then. Skip going to the polls on November 6th since you obviously are NOT undecided, and Obama has managed to convince you to be equally as inept as he is.

[red states rule]

Hey, the choise is easy

If you like $6 1/2 trillion more of debt, 2 credit downgrades, the 4th year in a row where the defcit has topped $1 trillion, gas prices doubled, record number of people on food stamps, a record percentage of people of some form of government assistance, increasing health ins costs, increasing number of people losing their homes to foreclosure, increaing number of bankrupcty filings, high unemployment, and the pending massive tax increase - then Obama is your guy

Look at the difference in the tone of the Obama campaign from 2008 and now. In 2008 he was the man who would restore prosperity. He would unite the nation. he would cut the deficit in half. He would fix the nations healthcare system. he would put people back to work

NOW, it is class warfare. The rich VS the poor. Men VS women. Employer VS employee

The choice is very clear folks

[aboutime]

Hey, the choise is easy

If you like $6 1/2 trillion more of debt, 2 credit downgrades, the 4th year in a row where the defcit has topped $1 trillion, gas prices doubled, record number of people on food stamps, a record percentage of people of some form of government assistance, increasing health ins costs, increasing number of people losing their homes to foreclosure, increaing number of bankrupcty filings, high unemployment, and the pending massive tax increase - then Obama is your guy

Look at the difference in the tone of the Obama campaign from 2008 and now. In 2008 he was the man who would restore prosperity. He would unite the nation. he would cut the deficit in half. He would fix the nations healthcare system. he would put people back to work

NOW, it is class warfare. The rich VS the poor. Men VS women. Employer VS employee

The choice is very clear folks

red states rule I know it. You know it, and most Americans who are able to think for themselves...using common sense, logic, and with a minimum of knowledge about Economics KNOW.
Obama and the Democrats have NOTHING else. Obama has No Record to brag about. But he has been highly successful at the Double-talk, Double standards he uses toward the Less Educated...whom he always impresses....because THEY KNOW he is smarter than they are. So they easily follow, and wait with their hands out...for all of that FREE stuff that separates them in Obama's Class Warfare agenda...which we all know. Should be called RACE WAREFARE AGENDA.

[red states rule]

red states rule I know it. You know it, and most Americans who are able to think for themselves...using common sense, logic, and with a minimum of knowledge about Economics KNOW.
Obama and the Democrats have NOTHING else. Obama has No Record to brag about. But he has been highly successful at the Double-talk, Double standards he uses toward the Less Educated...whom he always impresses....because THEY KNOW he is smarter than they are. So they easily follow, and wait with their hands out...for all of that FREE stuff that separates them in Obama's Class Warfare agenda...which we all know. Should be called RACE WAREFARE AGENDA.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz100412dAPR20121004124514.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Bird .... did you vote for Obama? If so, what level of detail did he provide about his plan before he was elected and how much of that detail has he realized over the last four years?

Romney has been successful at turn-arounds and what this country needs is a massive turn-around. To do a turn-around, one must get into the current workings of the entity and find out what the source of the problem is. Obama just wants to continue throwing money at the problem without finding out the source of the problem.

I am a business consultant .... and I never tell a business owner what "my" plan is until I've thoroughly studied his business. Then, based upon research and input from the owner and staff, together we come up with a plan. Sounds like that is the way Romney does business .... and I'm good with that.

One thing I can tell you ... Romney wants people to be more independent, which means they need jobs. Obama doesn't want people to be independent of the government. Independent citizens are harder to control if you are not providing their necessities of life.

Obama provided detail to the point voters supporting him actually believed that he would pay for their home loans, pay for gasoline and support them back.

Most of his voters when pressed to explain their vote, really had no clue what he actually said on his 2008 campaign.

Romney can do it because he has done it. Obama to this very day still does not understand economics nor how the USA public thinks.

Idiots will still vote for the man. No I can't think of any posters I claim to be idiots. We have true idiots and well meaning idiots. Both damage this country the same way.

I agree with Sassy. I too am in business. Obama brags about laws that have put my business almost in need of welfare. I kid you not. His laws have turned me into a person virtually unable to find any customers to seek loans for homes. I sell homes. I sold my last home years ago. I did my last home loan ahead of the Obama laws about over 2 years ago. Dodd Frank hurt my chances.


Look, CA has the toughest laws on the books as to home loans. I paid CA a lot of money to remain currently licensed. Then the State informed me I had to jump through Obama's hoops and pay the Feds some sort of fee just to stay in business. I call that extortion.

My decades of experience did not matter to Obama. My track record of no violations of any kind means nothing. I have to take and pass the Obama test first. They want me to waste a lot more time studying the field I have been involved in since 1971. Can you believe that?

[aboutime]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz100412dAPR20121004124514.jpg


red states rule. You forgot to include JOE BIDEN, standing beside that grave. Holding the Obama SHOVEL (ready)39753976

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr100412dAPR20121003114513.jpg

[mundame]

NOW, it is class warfare. The rich VS the poor. Men VS women. Employer VS employee

The choice is very clear folks



The choice between men and women? Which should I choose? Am I supposed to choose the ones in favor of men? I personally wish the GOP didn't hate women so much. When I was a Republican, most of my life, they didn't!! You didn't see Reagan being mean to women all the time and cursing at us like Limbaugh and passing laws against us like so many want now.

Employer vs. employee? Which should I choose? I think one depends on the other.

Well, they've got a Mormon and a Muslim up for election --- wake me when they put up normal, respectable candidates for president. I'm from Maryland; it doesn't matter if I vote anyway.

[red states rule]

The choice between men and women? Which should I choose? Am I supposed to choose the ones in favor of men? I personally wish the GOP didn't hate women so much. When I was a Republican, most of my life, they didn't!! You didn't see Reagan being mean to women all the time and cursing at us like Limbaugh and passing laws against us like so many want now.

Employer vs. employee? Which should I choose? I think one depends on the other.

Well, they've got a Mormon and a Muslim up for election --- wake me when they put up normal, respectable candidates for president. I'm from Maryland; it doesn't matter if I vote anyway.

How do R's "hate" women? Because they refuse to give a spoiled rich brat "free" birth control. It only costs $9/month - which hardly takes a bite out her allowance she gets from mom and dad

What laws were passed "against" you?

HAve you seen all the women and minorites speaking at the Republican convention? If you watched only MSNBC you did not because they ignored their speeches

[mundame]

How do R's "hate" women? Because they refuse to give a spoiled rich brat "free" birth control. It only costs $9/month - which hardly takes a bite out her allowance she gets from mom and dad

Oh, I agree with you as far as that goes; I didn't support her position. Although if men get Viagra paid for, of course women should get birth control pills too; that's obvious.

But the real problem was that bad, foul man Limbaugh spending three days saying the dirtiest, obscene things over and over about that lovely young woman!! What, she didn't have a right to testify before Congress like everyone else?? Darn! He was terrorizing her -- broadcasting the worst insults against her all over the nation, day in and day out, just getting a big sex thrill out of all his dirty talk. And a lot of men thought that was just wonderful!! I think that's pretty terrible.



What laws were passed "against" you?

Let's see --- 1) those awful inter-vaginal sonograms they try to shame women with; wow, if men got pregnant, they'd have drive-in abortions! 2) the fact that all the anti-women legislation like the Ryan-Akin bills were all by men!! 3) Speaking of Akin......yuck. Just, yuck. 4) Presidential candidate Rick Santorum actually wanting to ban birth control! Darn, he jumped right over abortion and decides he'll go against women on an issue that was settled in 1929! 5) The Republican candidate were almost 100% horrible to women in their personal lives and beliefs! I tried to like Newt, anyone but Mitt, but....darn, three wives all replaced by secret cheating one after the other and every time one of them gets sick, he switches out to a new wife???? That's seriously pretty low. I decided I just couldn't. Herman Cain........don't get me started on Herman Cain with his gropings and his 15-year mistress. These are the caliber of men the GOP puts up for president??? Okay, color me bitter. 6) and then they settle on a Mormon. A Romney with their generation after generation history of polygamy. Mormon polygamy, still going on in fundamentalist Mormons with brutal cruelty and child sexual abuse. Oh, nice, that's what I want, suuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrre.

Ten million more women vote than men in this country, I just read. I knew it was more, didn't know we voted THAT much more. Well, I'm not going to be one of them this time, that's all; I've earned that by a lifelong history of voting, but if they can't put up normal candidates, I don't have to play this stupid game anymore.


HAve you seen all the women and minorites speaking at the Republican convention? If you watched only MSNBC you did not because they ignored their speeches

I read about that. Trotting a gazillion females on stage to show.....to show that some women think all the rotten planks in the platform, all the rotten candidates aren't as bad as all that? Good luck.

[red states rule]

Oh, I agree with you as far as that goes; I didn't support her position. Although if men get Viagra paid for, of course women should get birth control pills too; that's obvious.

But the real problem was that bad, foul man Limbaugh spending three days saying the dirtiest, obscene things over and over about that lovely young woman!! What, she didn't have a right to testify before Congress like everyone else?? Darn! He was terrorizing her -- broadcasting the worst insults against her all over the nation, day in and day out, just getting a big sex thrill out of all his dirty talk. And a lot of men thought that was just wonderful!! I think that's pretty terrible.



Let's see --- 1) those awful inter-vaginal sonograms they try to shame women with; wow, if men got pregnant, they'd have drive-in abortions! 2) the fact that all the anti-women legislation like the Ryan-Akin bills were all by men!! 3) Speaking of Akin......yuck. Just, yuck. 4) Presidential candidate Rick Santorum actually wanting to ban birth control! Darn, he jumped right over abortion and decides he'll go against women on an issue that was settled in 1929! 5) The Republican candidate were almost 100% horrible to women in their personal lives and beliefs! I tried to like Newt, anyone but Mitt, but....darn, three wives all replaced by secret cheating one after the other and every time one of them gets sick, he switches out to a new wife???? That's seriously pretty low. I decided I just couldn't. Herman Cain........don't get me started on Herman Cain with his gropings and his 15-year mistress. These are the caliber of men the GOP puts up for president??? Okay, color me bitter. 6) and then they settle on a Mormon. A Romney with their generation after generation history of polygamy. Mormon polygamy, still going on in fundamentalist Mormons with brutal cruelty and child sexual abuse. Oh, nice, that's what I want, suuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrre.

Ten million more women vote than men in this country, I just read. I knew it was more, didn't know we voted THAT much more. Well, I'm not going to be one of them this time, that's all; I've earned that by a lifelong history of voting, but if they can't put up normal candidates, I don't have to play this stupid game anymore.



I read about that. Trotting a gazillion females on stage to show.....to show that some women think all the rotten planks in the platform, all the rotten candidates aren't as bad as all that? Good luck.

Rush made his comment of a Friday, issued an apogoly over the weekend, and at the top of every hour of his show, issued the apology again

If you want worse examples of hate toward women, look at what libs have said about Gov Palin and Michele Bauchmann

I oppose abortion as well in ALL CASES. You cannot give one good reason why an unborn child should be murdered

So do I "hate" women too?

There was no proff regarding Mr Caine. yet Dems welcomed a know sexual prediator, an accused rapist, and a man know who sexually assualting women. They gave him a standing "O" and the liberal media wishes he was still President

For some reason, libs never hold Bill Clinto to the same standards they want hold other to

If you want to see a real war on women - check this out

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gs3V0mic2W0/T42qRaqk6OI/AAAAAAAAGCs/hDN2xBJV2YQ/s320/womenjobs.jpg

[mundame]

NOW, it is class warfare. The rich VS the poor. Men VS women. Employer VS employee

The choice is very clear folks



But seriously: what did you mean here?

Do you really want us to choose between the party of men and the party of women, do you think they are separate and only men should vote GOP and women should only vote Dem?

Do you really think Republicans should vote for employers and Democrats for employees?

The rich vote Republican and the poor all vote Democrat, with an income cut off at what, $50,000?

If you really mean this, all the big numbers are on the side of the Democrats!! They have more women, more poor people, and more employees. Thats a prescription for the GOP to lose forever, isn't it?

[mundame]

There was no proff regarding Mr Caine. yet Dems welcomed a know sexual prediator, an accused rapist, and a man know who sexually assualting women. They gave him a standing "O" and the liberal media wishes he was still President

For some reason, libs never hold Bill Clinto to the same standards they want hold other to




You do have a good point there. Bill Clinton: successful president, as things turned out; AWFUL husband.


This is not a good reason for Republicans to choose a bunch of candidates that are just as morally low as he was or worse, however. As mom always said, if your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you have to jump off a bridge, too?

[red states rule]

But seriously: what did you mean here?

Do you really want us to choose between the party of men and the party of women, do you think they are separate and only men should vote GOP and women should only vote Dem?

Do you really think Republicans should vote for employers and Democrats for employees?

The rich vote Republican and the poor all vote Democrat, with an income cut off at what, $50,000?

If you really mean this, all the big numbers are on the side of the Democrats!! They have more women, more poor people, and more employees. Thats a prescription for the GOP to lose forever, isn't it?

I was pointing out the "hope and change" BS has been forgotten and now Obama and the Dems are pitting one group against another

Libs never admit that taxing the so called rich wil do NOTHING to help solve the debt. They want to ignore IRS number that show Obama could tax the top 2% at a 100% rate and the money collected would fund the government for about 10 days

Yes some people will vote for the SDems to keep their handouts coming - which wil keep them poor and dependent on the government. Now that is a perfect example of liberal compassion

[mundame]

the Dems are pitting one group against another




So are the Republicans. This woman-hating business is just CRAZY given that there are so many more women voters! The GOP will never again as long as the Republic lasts (a few more years, anyway) win another election if that's their bright new idea.

And while the Dems are certainly into class warfare and proletariat vs. capitalist warfare, sex warfare is even dumber, IMO, and the GOP is also into class warfare if they are going to get caught with Mitt talking about 47% of the people being worthless welfare addicts. Darn. I'm still trying to figure out where I come into that calculation, considering I get Social Security now --- and I actually don't know! Not a very nice thing to say. And he sends his money out to the Cayman Island banks to protect it from taxes?

No, I don't like ol' Mitt. You vote for him.

Get me Christie or somebody else decent next time and I'll vote for him.

Or her.

Maybe better just turn over the whole party to women; that may be the only way to get women back to the GOP.

[red states rule]

So are the Republicans. This woman-hating business is just CRAZY given that there are so many more women voters! The GOP will never again as long as the Republic lasts (a few more years, anyway) win another election if that's their bright new idea.

And while the Dems are certainly into class warfare and proletariat vs. capitalist warfare, sex warfare is even dumber, IMO, and the GOP is also into class warfare if they are going to get caught with Mitt talking about 47% of the people being worthless welfare addicts. Darn. I'm still trying to figure out where I come into that calculation, considering I get Social Security now --- and I actually don't know! Not a very nice thing to say. And he sends his money out to the Cayman Island banks to protect it from taxes?

No, I don't like ol' Mitt. You vote for him.

Get me Christie or somebody else decent next time and I'll vote for him.

Or her.

Maybe better just turn over the whole party to women; that may be the only way to get women back to the GOP.

Mitt walked back his comment - but he was correct since 50% of the people pay ZERO Federal income tax - while the top 50 of eanrers pay 97% of all Federal income taxes collected. do you consider that fair?

Meanwhile the liberal media has ignored Obama's "redistribution" comment

So will you vote for more the Obama economy - or are you going to stay home?

[red states rule]

You do have a good point there. Bill Clinton: successful president, as things turned out; AWFUL husband.


This is not a good reason for Republicans to choose a bunch of candidates that are just as morally low as he was or worse, however. As mom always said, if your friends jump off a bridge, does that mean you have to jump off a bridge, too?

Noone on our side is as bad as Bill Clinton. For someone who has talking about the "war on women" you seem to be glossing over how the Dems love Clinton.

The man is an accused rapist Mundame

and lets not forget the Kennedy clan. Their treatment of women is also well known but Dmes ignore it

[aboutime]

Bill Clinton was the president who gave every American an EXCUSE to break the laws of man, common sense, and honesty.

He created a COVER, or EXCUSE for Americans who willfully break laws to use, as in "If I don't believe in a God. That means I have no reason to believe in any TEN Rules, or Commandments. So I can just say. If I don't believe. I can't be guilty of breaking any laws!"

Anyone know what the definition of "IS" is?

[red states rule]

Bill Clinton was the president who gave every American an EXCUSE to break the laws of man, common sense, and honesty.

He created a COVER, or EXCUSE for Americans who willfully break laws to use, as in "If I don't believe in a God. That means I have no reason to believe in any TEN Rules, or Commandments. So I can just say. If I don't believe. I can't be guilty of breaking any laws!"

Anyone know what the definition of "IS" is?

and libs dismissed what Clinton did with

everybody did it

lying is good since you do not hurt the feelings of others

it was a vast right wing conspiracy

Hey Bill did what every man would do if given a chance

and my favorite was so what if there was sperm on her dress. That does not prove they had sex

[Trigg]

Oh, I agree with you as far as that goes; I didn't support her position. Although if men get Viagra paid for, of course women should get birth control pills too; that's obvious.

But the real problem was that bad, foul man Limbaugh spending three days saying the dirtiest, obscene things over and over about that lovely young woman!! What, she didn't have a right to testify before Congress like everyone else?? Darn! He was terrorizing her -- broadcasting the worst insults against her all over the nation, day in and day out, just getting a big sex thrill out of all his dirty talk. And a lot of men thought that was just wonderful!! I think that's pretty terrible.



Let's see --- 1) those awful inter-vaginal sonograms they try to shame women with; wow, if men got pregnant, they'd have drive-in abortions! 2) the fact that all the anti-women legislation like the Ryan-Akin bills were all by men!! 3) Speaking of Akin......yuck. Just, yuck. 4) Presidential candidate Rick Santorum actually wanting to ban birth control! Darn, he jumped right over abortion and decides he'll go against women on an issue that was settled in 1929! 5) The Republican candidate were almost 100% horrible to women in their personal lives and beliefs! I tried to like Newt, anyone but Mitt, but....darn, three wives all replaced by secret cheating one after the other and every time one of them gets sick, he switches out to a new wife???? That's seriously pretty low. I decided I just couldn't. Herman Cain........don't get me started on Herman Cain with his gropings and his 15-year mistress. These are the caliber of men the GOP puts up for president??? Okay, color me bitter. 6) and then they settle on a Mormon. A Romney with their generation after generation history of polygamy. Mormon polygamy, still going on in fundamentalist Mormons with brutal cruelty and child sexual abuse. Oh, nice, that's what I want, suuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrre.

Ten million more women vote than men in this country, I just read. I knew it was more, didn't know we voted THAT much more. Well, I'm not going to be one of them this time, that's all; I've earned that by a lifelong history of voting, but if they can't put up normal candidates, I don't have to play this stupid game anymore.



I read about that. Trotting a gazillion females on stage to show.....to show that some women think all the rotten planks in the platform, all the rotten candidates aren't as bad as all that? Good luck.

wow lots of topics..I'm a women so here's my take

Rush is an idiot.....

However the female Graduate student CHOSE to attend a CATHOLIC school. Knowing full well their insurance did not cover ANY TYPE of birth control. You claim they pay for viagra, that's the first I've heard that claim. Care to back it up?

Santorum and Newt I didn't like....so I'm not going to defend them. Especially since Newt's habitual divorce habit isn't worth defending.

However.....Mitt being Mormon is another story. The Mormon religion has been against polygamy for generations and I don't feel it's fair for you to lump him in with them. He has been married to his wife and true to her for many many years. No dirt has been dug up and by all accounts they have a good marriage and have raised hardworking boys.

Blaming Romney for the loonies on the compounds is like linking every church to those nut bags in the Westboro Church. It just doesn't make sense. IMHO

[red states rule]

wow lots of topics..I'm a women so here's my take

Rush is an idiot.....

However the female Graduate student CHOSE to attend a CATHOLIC school. Knowing full well their insurance did not cover ANY TYPE of birth control. You claim they pay for viagra, that's the first I've heard that claim. Care to back it up?

Santorum and Newt I didn't like....so I'm not going to defend them. Especially since Newt's habitual divorce habit isn't worth defending.

However.....Mitt being Mormon is another story. The Mormon religion has been against polygamy for generations and I don't feel it's fair for you to lump him in with them. He has been married to his wife and true to her for many many years. No dirt has been dug up and by all accounts they have a good marriage and have raised hardworking boys.

Blaming Romney for the loonies on the compounds is like linking every church to those nut bags in the Westboro Church. It just doesn't make sense. IMHO

Yes, Rush went over the line and said something stupid. But who has not

He offered an apology at least 5 different times but seems to have escaped coverage in the liberal media and the Dems using the girl as politcal pawn

[Trigg]

Yes, Rush went over the line and said something stupid. But who has not

He offered an apology at least 5 different times but seems to have escaped coverage in the liberal media and the Dems using the girl as politcal pawn


This wasn't the first time Rush said something stupid. I don't care for him, he's to over the top for me.

Like I said in my post the woman went to a Catholic school and then bitched about insurance coverage. I don't support her either.

[red states rule]

This wasn't the first time Rush said something stupid. I don't care for him, he's to over the top for me.

Like I said in my post the woman went to a Catholic school and then bitched about insurance coverage. I don't support her either.

On Rush we can agree to disagree. He is usually spot on

But like Cindy Sheehan, Sandra has faded away since she is no longer a useful idiot for the cause

[Abbey Marie]

But seriously: what did you mean here?

Do you really want us to choose between the party of men and the party of women, do you think they are separate and only men should vote GOP and women should only vote Dem?

Do you really think Republicans should vote for employers and Democrats for employees?

The rich vote Republican and the poor all vote Democrat, with an income cut off at what, $50,000?

If you really mean this, all the big numbers are on the side of the Democrats!! They have more women, more poor people, and more employees. Thats a prescription for the GOP to lose forever, isn't it?

I would bet that Red meant that the Dems are portraying the Republicans as anti-women.

[red states rule]

I would bet that Red meant that the Dems are portraying the Republicans as anti-women.

As usual you are correct Abbey

Dems are running on how we hate women, blacks, Latinos, gays, want dirty air and water, want to toss old people out of nursing homes, want to starve children, take SS checks away from the old folks, kill off the sick, and nuke everyone overseas

Did I leave anything out?

[Abbey Marie]

As usual you are correct Abbey

Dems are running on how we hate women, blacks, Latinos, gays, want dirty air and water, want to toss old people out of nursing homes, want to starve children, take SS checks away from the old folks, kill off the sick, and nuke everyone overseas

Did I leave anything out?

I'm pretty sure we want to force everyone on pain of death to worhip Jesus, and eat high-fat high-calorie foods while we are doing it.

[red states rule]

I'm pretty sure we want to force everyone on pain of death to worhip Jesus, and eat high-fat high-calorie foods while we are doing it.

and we want everyone to drive massive SUV's, burn nothing but 100 watt light bulbs, crank up the heat in the winter, and A/C in the summer, drill baby drill and the hell with the enviorment and animals in the woods

[BirdOPrey5]

Newt I didn't find particularly likable and his personal life is sub-par for sure but I do think he was the smartest person running for the job in my lifetime.

Herman Cain would have have brought fresh ideas not molded by a life in politics.

Truth be told Clinton did show you could be an effective President even with some women on the side. I happened to meet Bill Clinton and had some minor interaction with him and his office and while I didn't want him to be re-elected he is a nice guy.

[red states rule]

Newt I didn't find particularly likable and his personal life is sub-par for sure but I do think he was the smartest person running for the job in my lifetime.

Herman Cain would have have brought fresh ideas not molded by a life in politics.

Truth be told Clinton did show you could be an effective President even with some women on the side. I happened to meet Bill Clinton and had some minor interaction with him and his office and while I didn't want him to be re-elected he is a nice guy.

So it is OK with you if a guy rapes and sexually assualts women, lies under oath, and obstructs justice as long as an "effective President"?

[mundame]

Mitt walked back his comment - but he was correct since 50% of the people pay ZERO Federal income tax - while the top 50 of eanrers pay 97% of all Federal income taxes collected. do you consider that fair?

Meanwhile the liberal media has ignored Obama's "redistribution" comment

So will you vote for more the Obama economy - or are you going to stay home?


No, I think everyone should pay for government, or no one. I think everyone should pay equally for government, and I mean equal DOLLAR amounts. It's not fair richer people should pay more when it is perfectly clear that poor people soak up most government services!!!!!

I'm not going to stay home because I want to vote on two referenda. Two referenda and I'm outta there.

If you want to vote for one of those weirdos for president, hey, enjoy. I'm fed up.

[mundame]

So it is OK with you if a guy rapes and sexually assualts women, lies under oath, and obstructs justice as long as an "effective President"?



No, indeed. So thank God we didn't nominate Herman Cain.

[mundame]

Noone on our side is as bad as Bill Clinton. For someone who has talking about the "war on women" you seem to be glossing over how the Dems love Clinton.

The man is an accused rapist Mundame

and lets not forget the Kennedy clan. Their treatment of women is also well known but Dmes ignore it


There is a Spanish proverb that is relevant here. I hope everyone will excuse me if I quote it: "Every man loves the smell of his own shit."

The Dems do love Clinton and Kennedy despite their wild sexual misconduct.

And the Republicans also love Limbaugh and Herman Cain and Jack Ryan and Newt Gingrich despite their wildly inappropriate or criminal sexual behavior.

In fact, both parties think it's just fine to nominate all of these people for high office even after their bad behavior becomes known!!

BOTH parties excuse the grossest sexual misconduct by their heroes. I know what I think of that; I think the heck with the lot of them. I don't want anything to do with any of these types.

[mundame]

However the female Graduate student CHOSE to attend a CATHOLIC school. Knowing full well their insurance did not cover ANY TYPE of birth control. You claim they pay for viagra, that's the first I've heard that claim. Care to back it up?



I don't have a citation, but on another forum people WERE claiming that Viagra is one of the drugs that is regularly covered by employer-funded insurance, and I do think that is the case. I don't know whether that was true of the Georgetown insurance, but I bet it was. It's one of those asymmetries that just does not work for me. If no birth control coverage, no Viagra coverage either.

[Trigg]

I don't have a citation, but on another forum people WERE claiming that Viagra is one of the drugs that is regularly covered by employer-funded insurance, and I do think that is the case. I don't know whether that was true of the Georgetown insurance, but I bet it was. It's one of those asymmetries that just does not work for me. If no birth control coverage, no Viagra coverage either.

Well I would agree with you, if the catholic college is not offering birth control they shouldn't offer coverage for viagra.

However, if you don't KNOW for a fact that Georgetown (a Catholic institution) covers Viagra, than you should not assume it's true based on "another forum".


The GOP does not have a war of women. Most insurance companies cover birth control. This was a case of a PRIVATE Catholic college, that this women CHOSE to attend, knowing full well that they DID NOT cover birth control. I really don't see her bitch. She was a graduate student who could have gone to any elite college to further her education.

[mundame]

Well I would agree with you, if the catholic college is not offering birth control they shouldn't offer coverage for viagra.

However, if you don't KNOW for a fact that Georgetown (a Catholic institution) covers Viagra, than you should not assume it's true based on "another forum".


The GOP does not have a war of women. Most insurance companies cover birth control. This was a case of a PRIVATE Catholic college, that this women CHOSE to attend, knowing full well that they DID NOT cover birth control. I really don't see her bitch. She was a graduate student who could have gone to any elite college to further her education.


I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

[red states rule]

There is a Spanish proverb that is relevant here. I hope everyone will excuse me if I quote it: "Every man loves the smell of his own shit."

The Dems do love Clinton and Kennedy despite their wild sexual misconduct.

And the Republicans also love Limbaugh and Herman Cain and Jack Ryan and Newt Gingrich despite their wildly inappropriate or criminal sexual behavior.

In fact, both parties think it's just fine to nominate all of these people for high office even after their bad behavior becomes known!!

BOTH parties excuse the grossest sexual misconduct by their heroes. I know what I think of that; I think the heck with the lot of them. I don't want anything to do with any of these types.

Please explain what criminal behavior Rush, Herman, and Jack you are talking about

Meanwhile you dismiss actual crminal behaviour (including the death of one women by Ted Kennedy) as wild sexual misconduct


Sems you have made your mind up and will belive your verison of the truth no matter what. You keep talking about Rush's comment toward a bimbo wanting free stuff from the government depsite his repeated apology to her. I gues you are one of those rare individuals who has never said something stupid and later regretted it.

[red states rule]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

Once again you offer a faulty verison of your facts. Rush talked about her wasting the time of Congress and made one over the top comment on Friday. He issued his apology over the weekend and then offered up at least three more during his show on Monday

You seem to be someone who refuses to accept a heartfelt apology and would rather have the "issue" of Rush's comment and ignore the bimbo demanding free handouts at the expese of others

I would like to see her income and expenses to see why she cannot afford $9/month for her birth control pills at the local Wal Mart

[Trigg]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

The only "war on women" the reepublicans are having is the one made up by the dems.


Rush does not speak for the vast majority of republicans.....he's an entertainer

[aboutime]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.


mundame. The only WAR Republicans are having against ANY women, or woman IS...the war against SLUTS.

There just happen to be more SLUTS popping up lately, trying to get, either their 15 Minutes of Fame, or their 9 dollars for Birth control from YOU, and ME.
We have CHER, GA GA, MADONNA, STREISAND, NUMEROUS Hollyweirdo's, and One, Spoiled SPOTLIGHTED SLUT named FLUKE.

If you have no problem paying for the mistakes other women make in being the GROUND ZERO for unknown, unprotected men who are like Obama. SCREWING an entire nation. Then have at it.

[Robert A Whit]

Mitt walked back his comment - but he was correct since 50% of the people pay ZERO Federal income tax - while the top 50 of eanrers pay 97% of all Federal income taxes collected. do you consider that fair?

Meanwhile the liberal media has ignored Obama's "redistribution" comment

So will you vote for more the Obama economy - or are you going to stay home?

I have no understanding of the women who make such claims about Mitt Romney. They call him a woman hater? I see no proof he hates women.

Is this because of people such as myself that hate the killing off of so many Americans in the womb merely because the mother does not want the child? This in my view amounts to legalized killing. It is a sign that the state has taken over life when it allows the brutal killing of millions of unborn. Many abortions kill off girls.

I don't think Mitt said he does not like the lower 47 percent, I heard him say that he does not think they plan to vote for him. He realizes that no matter what he does, CA is not going to support him. Not this socialist state. He did not call them names. He stated that he believes that they see themselves as victims.

Nothing is ever 100 percent so we took him at meaning that most of the so called poor are claimed by the democrats to be in the bag. He realizes that you don't reason with Democrats, what you do is give them gifts from their neighbors wallets. That is what Romney won't promise.

[red states rule]

The only "war on women" the reepublicans are having is the one made up by the dems.


Rush does not speak for the vast majority of republicans.....he's an entertainer


With all due respect Trigg, there is a war on women and it is being led by Obama/Dems



http://youtu.be/9JR4dT5NcXc

[aboutime]

red states rule. We all seem to be old enough, and wise enough to recognize what is actually taking place with this SO-CALLED war on Women the Dems rely on as their Tool of Choice to divide women.

As in Maher's case. The likely Liberal defenders who insist...He's a comedian, and only making jokes...is actually CODE for that WINKING, and NODDING that we all know...takes place. No matter what profession you happen to call your own.

Obama and friends depend on their CHOSEN proxy Comedian Liars, who stand behind the phony 1st amendment claims, or use SATIRE, or Comedy as their DEFENSE...while doing their LIBERAL JIG that includes the WINK, WINK, WINK, and NOD, NOD, NOD....with that DISHONEST Smile...they know, will get them off the hook every time someone complains.

Double Speak, and Double Standards, based on Lies, Accusations, Name calling, and Stupidity are their BEST TOOLS, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

I prefer to just push them all together into one HUGE PILE OF DESPICABLE HORSE MANURE, normally reserved for SHIT HEADS like them and the use of HONESTY to expose them, just as I expose Obama.

In other words. WHATEVER they choose to call it. Be it war on women, or war on whatever.

THEY ARE ALL NOTHING BUT PRACTICED, PROFESSIONAL, CONSISTENT LIARS.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

When a person takes a special case, as you have managed to do, it is bigoted.
Sandra Fluke is a special case. What would you think if she wanted the Catholics to pay for a hotel room so she could mate? What if she wanted them to pay for gasoline so she could get to her lover? She has a right to sex. She does not have a right to make me pay for her pleasure.

I know for a fact that we republicans are not in any fashion having a war against women. We have wives, moms, sisters, aunts, grandmas and so forth. We have no intention of letting the lie stand that supposedly we are in some war with the women. We love those women.

Loving my sister does not hint I expect you to pay for her birth control. I think she owes it to herself to take care. She knows the risk.

This crap of making Mitt Romney be responsible for the words of Rush Limbaugh, whom I understand issued his apology for words he stated is crazy talk. Why blame the rest of us for what an entertainer said. What if we blamed democrats over words by one of their own?

Why on earth did you listen to Rush for 1 day or 3 days? I don't turn on the radio and listen to him. Not that I have hard feelings, I just don't have that sort of time to spend on his program.

Hannity is on my radio. I don't listen to him. I won't pay almost $50 per month just to get FOX NEWS all day long. I don't watch MSNBC either.

What the heck do you listen to or watch? You told us you listen to Rush. Who else?

BTW, Rush is not the republican party leader. Never was.

[red states rule]

red states rule. We all seem to be old enough, and wise enough to recognize what is actually taking place with this SO-CALLED war on Women the Dems rely on as their Tool of Choice to divide women.

As in Maher's case. The likely Liberal defenders who insist...He's a comedian, and only making jokes...is actually CODE for that WINKING, and NODDING that we all know...takes place. No matter what profession you happen to call your own.

Obama and friends depend on their CHOSEN proxy Comedian Liars, who stand behind the phony 1st amendment claims, or use SATIRE, or Comedy as their DEFENSE...while doing their LIBERAL JIG that includes the WINK, WINK, WINK, and NOD, NOD, NOD....with that DISHONEST Smile...they know, will get them off the hook every time someone complains.

Double Speak, and Double Standards, based on Lies, Accusations, Name calling, and Stupidity are their BEST TOOLS, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

I prefer to just push them all together into one HUGE PILE OF DESPICABLE HORSE MANURE, normally reserved for SHIT HEADS like them and the use of HONESTY to expose them, just as I expose Obama.

In other words. WHATEVER they choose to call it. Be it war on women, or war on whatever.

THEY ARE ALL NOTHING BUT PRACTICED, PROFESSIONAL, CONSISTENT LIARS.

It is clear the liberals do want women to break the glass ceiling. But ONLY liberal women

Libs want conservative women to be the ones who sweep up the broken glass

Another thing I learned early in life is if not for their double standards, liberals would have no standards at all

[aboutime]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

mundame???? Filthiest language imaginable? Really?
Guess you haven't read, or heard SNOOP DOG, or SNOOP LION speak about women at all.
Calling someone a SLUT to you is FILTHY. But you have no problem when someone tells someone else to GET "F'd" or "F-off", and the word SLUT is the FILTHIEST IMAGINABLE.

What rock do you live under?

[red states rule]

mundame???? Filthiest language imaginable? Really?
Guess you haven't read, or heard SNOOP DOG, or SNOOP LION speak about women at all.
Calling someone a SLUT to you is FILTHY. But you have no problem when someone tells someone else to GET "F'd" or "F-off", and the word SLUT is the FILTHIEST IMAGINABLE.

What rock do you live under?


Mundame must never watch/listen Obama's pals like Bill Maher, Cher, the bimbos on the View, and other tolerant Hollywood libs

Of ocurse I am beginning to suspect Mudame suffers from a common illness most libs suffer
S
elective Memory Loss and Selective Outrage

[aboutime]

Mundame must never watch/listen Obama's pals like Bill Maher, Cher, the bimbos on the View, and other tolerant Hollywood libs

Of ocurse I am beginning to suspect Mudame suffers from a common illness most libs suffer
S
elective Memory Loss and Selective Outrage


red states rule. If your suspicions about Mundame don't pan out. There's always a good possibility, based on what we have been reading from mundame....that this is actually Mister Obama himself. Coming here to finally learn what is really taking place in the REAL WORLD, all around him while ROME BURNS.

[red states rule]

red states rule. If your suspicions about Mundame don't pan out. There's always a good possibility, based on what we have been reading from mundame....that this is actually Mister Obama himself. Coming here to finally learn what is really taking place in the REAL WORLD, all around him while ROME BURNS.


Mundame strikes me as the ind of perosn if she does not her about it on MSNBC, the NY Times, and NPR - then it never happened and it is all right wing propaganda

She says she will not vote for anyone so she really is voting for Obama by default. More common nonsense from the "smart ones"

[DragonStryk72]

Let me give a little background issue-

I have grown up in Brooklyn and since I began working lived in Queens, NY. I always considered myself a fiscal conservative and for that reason usually identified with the Republicans- especially in NYC I would be considered to the right, although on social issues I'm more liberal and people from truly conservative states would not consider me conservative.

Throughout this election I have been torn. I voted for W, twice... What I saw when I looked at George W Bush was man who I believed truly loved this country and truly cared about the American people. I do NOT see that when I look at Mitt Romney. I don't see it when I look at Obama either.

Throughout the election I was hoping either Herman Cain or Newt would have been the nominee.

What scares me about Romney is his refusal to go into detail on what tax deductions he will eliminate and for who. It's nice he wants to cut FEDERAL income taxes 20% but quite frankly cutting my federal income taxes 20% but eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid to the state would mean a net MASSIVE increase in my taxes- and as someone on a fixed income these days it would likely mean me having to sell my house and move away from all my friends and family to a cheaper state like Florida.

So until he cal tell me his plans, I don't see me voting for Romney.

But Obama- he was the President who pushed for in some case, or simply allowed in other cases, laws I consider completely unconstitutional to pass. I'd vote guilty on a jury to convict him of treason before I'd really vote for him for President.

I realize living in New York my state is going to Obama regardless of my vote, but I do consider the popular vote useful for sending a message of the people. I may just go Libertarian this year.

Well, for one, his plans are available online here: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

Now second, real quick, don't vote Libertarian to send a message. I am one, don't go there. We're the party of principle for a reason, so vote your heart.

The reason Romney doesn't give a categorical list out is because even the IRS doesn't know all the deductions on the books these days, and that's their job. What chance does Romney have on that count? Even if he did go right down a list of deductions, there are literally 10s of thousands of them. That would be all he would be doing for the rest of the campaign.

Now, why does the Obama team keep bringing it up? Well, it's simple: Because they know he can't possibly know all of them, and so they'll either lampoon what he does bring up, or they'll take his examples as the only ones to be cut, and that's all anyone will get to hear about.

[red states rule]

Well, for one, his plans are available online here: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

Now second, real quick, don't vote Libertarian to send a message. I am one, don't go there. We're the party of principle for a reason, so vote your heart.

The reason Romney doesn't give a categorical list out is because even the IRS doesn't know all the deductions on the books these days, and that's their job. What chance does Romney have on that count? Even if he did go right down a list of deductions, there are literally 10s of thousands of them. That would be all he would be doing for the rest of the campaign.

Now, why does the Obama team keep bringing it up? Well, it's simple: Because they know he can't possibly know all of them, and so they'll either lampoon what he does bring up, or they'll take his examples as the only ones to be cut, and that's all anyone will get to hear about.


Of course the Obama goons and the liberal media will attack anything Mitt puts out there.They have yet to offer a budget, a counter to the Ryan Medicare plan, or offer any examples of tax reform (except raise EVERYONES taxes)

The last thing Obama wants to do it to SOLVE any issue. It is bettter to have the issue to run on then an actual solution

[Robert A Whit]

And the Republicans also love Limbaugh and Herman Cain and Jack Ryan and Newt Gingrich despite their wildly inappropriate or criminal sexual behavior.
Talk about the proverbial HATCHET JOB, if you change that to SOME PEOPLE, who may be of any party, it comes closer to the truth.

I don't love any of those people. I believe Ryan is an honorable man and has not done any of that.

Rush is merely a man on the radio. Anyone can change the station or turn off the radio. Cain is a man in business. He offered some ideas. Ideas are welcome by anybody. Newt Gingrich is a brilliant person and a great teacher. Do you think history has been tough on Jefferson for owning slaves and for having sex with them? Do you think History has been tough on Washington who also owned slaves? What about all the presidents who owned slaves who may all have had sex with them?

Bull Clinton got away with rape. Teddy Kennedy got away with leaving the scene of an auto wreck with a passenger and look what happened to him? Democrats loved him. His passenger died. Talk about womanizers. I think the Kennedy clan is pretty well known for their debauchery.

Somebody stated as a fact that republicans have a war against women. That is utter non truth and should be stricken from this forum. It is a CLAIM but not true.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=582708#post582708)
So it is OK with you if a guy rapes and sexually assualts women, lies under oath, and obstructs justice as long as an "effective President"?






http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.pngOriginally Posted by, Mundame



No indeed. So thank God we didn't nominate Herman Cain.

That is as wierd construct of logic as I have ever seen.

This nation is replete with former presidents whose morals were that of some junk yard dog. And the list of politicians would take days to list all of them.

The other poster was trying to tell you what Clinton did. Not a man who never got past first base in the election process.

How the hell did you miss that?

[Robert A Whit]

I don't differ with you on any of these points. (Well, except I do think that the GOP does seem to be having a huge war on women this year, IMO, and I was a Republican for most of my life so I remember when they didn't do all this bad stuff.) Sandra Fluke was of course part of an effort to force the separation of church/state rules as they apply to health insurance coverage. I'm no great fan of Catholic claims to be independent of the law, but I don't care much about this birth control issue one way or another. I didn't support her position.

The problem for me was not anything she said. She had a right to testify before Congress without Rush spending THREE DAYS ranting continually against her with the filthiest language imaginable, constant sex accusations and slurs of the dirtiest kind. What he did to her was terrorism, really. I suppose the college and police had to hire bodyguards for her; I'm amazed Rush didn't get some of his crazier followers to attack and kill her. She was a beautiful young woman and he knew his listeners, nearly all men, would love his filthy sex talk about her, and maybe they did. That Rush guy is evil-bad. He's the worst of America, IMO. If he can do that to her, he can do it to any of us -- me, you, any woman. He thinks an APOLOGY is enough to cover all that??? He should be taken off the air everywhere. He should be in prison. He should be banished to Uzbekistan.

In my opinion.

You appear to despise Rush Limbaugh and pin the tail on republicans for what he did.

Why is that?

Me, do you know what I do about Rush?

I don't turn his station on. Really, I don't bother listening to a lot of people on the air. I might be watching CSPAN and getting an education. But why can't you simply stop listening to Rush?

[gabosaurus]

Rush Limbaugh is a figurehead is extreme left wing hate. You can turn him off if you want to.
My husband listens to Rush all the time. Rush is an intelligent man who makes a good living as a talk show host. He is a lot more moderate than Hannity or some of the other right wing goofballs.

I can't recall all the instances where someone in this forum has told me "You need to stop getting all your ideas from MSNBC!" When, in actuality, I have never listened to MSNBC.
"But it's a liberal channel! You have to listen to it!"
No, sorry, I don't listen to Fox News, either.
The moral of the story is -- make up your own damn mind! :salute: