Originally Posted by RichieLion

I've written and deleted about 6 posts on this now. The above seems so crazy to me and devoid of real understanding and insight on the actors involved that I don't know how to respond without it being personal.

I've often disagreed with you, but this is the first time you floored me.

Since I consider this a compliment to DJPLONG, allow me to join you. I gave him a bit of a "shot" on the healthcare thread but this post of his is simply a shock to my system.

It appears that MAYBE he understands what realistic minds have been saying that this man is NOT leader, has no clue and frankly the more I read on healthcare, it is like an anchor he has layed on future generations and a piece of legislation that TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY missed the mark of its objective..to cut healh care costs.

Originally Posted by buggyone

No matter what the COLA's were along the way, she has taken out many times what she and her employer contributed.

It is not always necessary to try and get the last word in on a conversation - especially when posting from a computer during work time.

Just an FYI...last information I read was the only 64% of recepients of Social Security were in the narrow definition you seem to be using.

The rest of the recipients were ruled disabled, children, widows, etc.

This post was made from HOME and not on anyone elses time but mine !

However, Santorum would be 4 years of a theocracy

Total BS. What, Santorum would be the first Christian President? You drink too much kool aid.

Ok, Richie, let me ask you then.. I made the following charges as to what I would see under a Romney administration.. I'll list and elaborate..

1) Romney would ramp up the wars - Public statements he made a few weeks ago - especially about increasing the military budget.

2) cut taxes - again, some pretty public comments.

3) Increased spending and more tax cuts like Bush gave us will give us a bigger deficit - and let's not forget that more people are retiring, the Social Security annual surplus is GONE so the government has to pay back some of those IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. Hence: "make Obama's deficits look like pocket change"

4) but keep the status quo for the very wealthy - The wealthy have shown ample ability to survive these problems. Not so much the middle class.

Romney is certainly no Reagan. Can't compromise -though now that I think about it who knows where his undecided nature will take him (what others call his 'flip flopping').

So what part of that got such a reaction?

Again, remember, I'm no fan of Obama but Romney doesn't look better to me.

these fabrications about the failures of Obama are laughable. I will agree that healthcare is a mess but to say he has failed America is wrong. I think he has had a very successful 4 years. His accomplishments are totally ignored by the Limbaugh robots but I expect nothing more from close minded people who truly hope that Obama fails even if it hurts the country.

But remember, these are the same people who told us Iraq had WMD's. It's a slam dunk !!!!!

These are the same people who told us Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

These are the same people who told us the Iraquis would treat us as liberators.

Originally Posted by coralway

But remember, these are the same people who told us Iraq had WMD's. It's a slam dunk !!!!!

These are the same people who told us Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

These are the same people who told us the Iraquis would treat us as liberators.

And away she goes...you are just about..no...maybe ARE the most predictable poster on here

Originally Posted by waynet

these fabrications about the failures of Obama are laughable. I will agree that healthcare is a mess but to say he has failed America is wrong. I think he has had a very successful 4 years. His accomplishments are totally ignored by the Limbaugh robots but I expect nothing more from close minded people who truly hope that Obama fails even if it hurts the country.

first of all, I am nor have I ever been a listener of Limbaugh, but THAT comment is expected and must be a pre requisite for you guys.

I have spent time today DETAILING failure but you never reply..you simply make these little accusations...If you agree that the health bill is a mess, how can you defend him. He spent an entire year, instead of jobs working on this behind closed doors after promising transparency and then NEVER EVEN addressed what it was supposed to be about..health costs.

SO he wasted that year and you still love him...that bill by the way will be an anchor on this country for years and years.

The ME is a mess...not saying he caused it.....but there are people being massacred in Syria, Somolia......Iran continues to build...China premier was just seleted as the poster boy for the Unions....the debt climbs...oh, now he says lets do this and that...of course it is an election year. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT at his direction is overruling STATE law in a number of cases, and you still defend this man.

I could go on but you dont care actually,you will defend him under any and all criticism

Originally Posted by djplong

Ok, Richie, let me ask you then.. I made the following charges as to what I would see under a Romney administration.. I'll list and elaborate..

1) Romney would ramp up the wars - Public statements he made a few weeks ago - especially about increasing the military budget.

2) cut taxes - again, some pretty public comments.

3) Increased spending and more tax cuts like Bush gave us will give us a bigger deficit - and let's not forget that more people are retiring, the Social Security annual surplus is GONE so the government has to pay back some of those IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. Hence: "make Obama's deficits look like pocket change"

4) but keep the status quo for the very wealthy - The wealthy have shown ample ability to survive these problems. Not so much the middle class.

Romney is certainly no Reagan. Can't compromise -though now that I think about it who knows where his undecided nature will take him (what others call his 'flip flopping').

So what part of that got such a reaction?

Again, remember, I'm no fan of Obama but Romney doesn't look better to me.

First, the biggest one that you failed to repeat this time. The absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous idea that Santorum would create some kind of "theocracy". What a crock of "you know what". I'm sorry DJ, but that just the stupidest thing I've heard anyone (and you're not alone, so I hate to single you out) say this campaign season.

1. "increasing the military budget"; now this translates to "ramping up wars"?? What?, are you hanging with Cindy Sheehan now? How you make this connection is beyond me. You want war?; you want war??......disarm our military and you'll get war. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of reality.

2. Again, the complete opposite of reality. Cut taxes, especially corporate and capital gains taxes with surety and you give business confidence that this is the time to expand and seek their apex. This works every time it's tried. I wish I could resurrect the great Ronald Reagan to explain this to you better.

3. Severely decrease spending and cut taxes. That's your answer. Government has got to get out of business's way. The government cannot create wealth. They only take it.

4. Class envy nonsense. I won't address it.

5. Either Romney, Santorum or Gingrich would be world's better than Obama, with his low view of America's greatness, his battle to turn our free country into a top-down government dominated society with "like intellectuals" (what a joke) in charge of our daily lives.

At least these Republicans with their faults are real Americans, and I'm not talking about place of birth, I'm talking about American in their heart. Obama is devoid of Americanism. He a despiser of the U.S. Constitution which he believes is the law for "old white America", and obsolete and an obstacle to be overcome in the new and brave Obama world of tomorrow.

Originally Posted by djplong

Ok, Richie, let me ask you then.. I made the following charges as to what I would see under a Romney administration.. I'll list and elaborate..

1) Romney would ramp up the wars - Public statements he made a few weeks ago - especially about increasing the military budget.

2) cut taxes - again, some pretty public comments.

3) Increased spending and more tax cuts like Bush gave us will give us a bigger deficit - and let's not forget that more people are retiring, the Social Security annual surplus is GONE so the government has to pay back some of those IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. Hence: "make Obama's deficits look like pocket change"

4) but keep the status quo for the very wealthy - The wealthy have shown ample ability to survive these problems. Not so much the middle class.

Romney is certainly no Reagan. Can't compromise -though now that I think about it who knows where his undecided nature will take him (what others call his 'flip flopping').

So what part of that got such a reaction?

Again, remember, I'm no fan of Obama but Romney doesn't look better to me.

Middle class...middle class?!
Would those be the Democrat folks that Joe Biden was addressing at the $10,000 a couple State dinner. You know, the one where Biden said that Republicans are out of touch with the middle class... While said middle classed dined on grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatoes.
OMG, they all make me sick!

Biden hails middle class at wealthy fundraiser | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Middle class...middle class?!
Would those be the Democrat folks that Joe Biden was addressing at the $10,000 a couple State dinner. You know, the one where Biden said that Republicans are out of touch with the middle class... While said middle classed dined on grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatoes.
OMG, they all make me sick!

Biden hails middle class at wealthy fundraiser | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Taking quotes from Rick Sanitarium like "they all make me sick" is the high point that one could hope for in this campaign. Will "they all make me want to throw up" be their battle cry - even after they are shown to be laughing stock in front of the nation - when in Tampa this summer?

Richie:

Romney has given NO details on what he'd cut. As VK has pointed out, cutting spending to lower the deficit is going to require HUGE cuts in "The Big Three" (Military, Social Security, Medicare) and I haven't heard a word on that. Certianly nothing resembling details. So, no, I don't believe he can cut our way to prosperity.

Romney also talked about a surge in Afghanistan. He also said that he'd only support witdrawing upon advice from military commanders (that's on his own website). He also said that Gen. Petraeus' recommendations (pulling out in 2012) were of questionable value. He's a bit all over the map here. It's like he'd only listen to the recommendations of the military in Afghanistan if he agreed with them.

And as to Bucco's reaction to my 'theocracy' comment - if I had to pick one statement from Santorum that scares me the most it's the one where he said that separation of church and state has been "turned on it's head" and that people of faith weren't welcome in the public swuare - which is a complete crock. He went on to say that only atheists (I actually SAW that clip) were welcome now and he was fighting against that. This is where he also said how much JFK's comments made him want to throw up.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie:

Romney has given NO details on what he'd cut. As VK has pointed out, cutting spending to lower the deficit is going to require HUGE cuts in "The Big Three" (Military, Social Security, Medicare) and I haven't heard a word on that. Certianly nothing resembling details. So, no, I don't believe he can cut our way to prosperity.

Romney also talked about a surge in Afghanistan. He also said that he'd only support witdrawing upon advice from military commanders (that's on his own website). He also said that Gen. Petraeus' recommendations (pulling out in 2012) were of questionable value. He's a bit all over the map here. It's like he'd only listen to the recommendations of the military in Afghanistan if he agreed with them.

And as to Bucco's reaction to my 'theocracy' comment - if I had to pick one statement from Santorum that scares me the most it's the one where he said that separation of church and state has been "turned on it's head" and that people of faith weren't welcome in the public swuare - which is a complete crock. He went on to say that only atheists (I actually SAW that clip) were welcome now and he was fighting against that. This is where he also said how much JFK's comments made him want to throw up.

On the subject of Romney, you've taken the wind out of your own sails with the obfuscations in this post, in my opinion. You were very sure of him earlier and now he's "all over the map". Your tax and spend issues are your opinion, but not borne out in consideration of the successful Reagan model of cutting spending and taxes.

You're also toning down your earlier "Santorum's going to institute a theocracy" theory to "he doesn't believe Christians get a fair shake in our society and that "church and state has been turned on it's head" Well, this we can talk about.

He is correct, and Christian religiosity is now ridiculed instead of embraced in this country by the secularists in control. That's just a correct deduction by the most casual observer.

No, Richie, what you mean to say is that "extremist Christian" idealogy is ridiculed by most Americans.

Richie - careful when you bring up Reagan - remember how many times he raised taxes. I grant you he TRIED to cut spending but had a rather uincooperative Congress. That being said, deals WERE made that were good for the country with BOTH sides giving some ground.

I disagree that Christians aren't getting a fair shake. I *do* admit that Christians can FEEL like they're under attack just as ANY majority that suddenly finds it's position slipping would. I'll use the example of allowing a Bible study class in schools after hours.

Principle bans the group. Christian groups cry 'foul'. School board says "separation of church and state' - quoting the Supreme Court. They, of course do NOT quote the rest of the decisions that DO allow the Bible study group PROVIDED they allow in OTHER religious groups.

So - to me - the question usually boils down to: Whatever it is that you're arguing about, what if it was another religion wanting the same thing? A menorah in the Town Square. A pagan Maypole. A Jewish studies class after school.

If the Christian group says "we're ok with that", then I'm with them. To me, it stands, Constitutionally, because the government is NOT showing a preference for one religion over another.

If, however, as has happened in other school districts, the Christians want a Bible study class after school but say that the kid's D&D games after school have to be banned because it's "devil worship", then I'm against them (for the fact that they don't know what a 'game' is and the hypocrisy of wanting their religious beliefs enforced on others)

So, to bring this back to Santorum, do you think he would be equally fair to other religions?