B-Large

Not one cent of tax payer dollars should fund abortions, IMHO.

Whoa, that is deep....

Like Tom stated, at this point facing the reality fo this situation will likely take both. Tax increases in the absence of reforms in place and passed into law should be ground for a flogging. I don't think Americans mind paying a litle more to help pay back the sins of the past, but they do not want to continue paying more if the sinners continue to do their thing. -It should not be considered earth shaterring extremism to discuss voucherizing Medicare. -A discussion about what the Pentagon needs to protect the country should ot have to be a referrendum on who is weak on defense -Social Security does not have to be a National Pension System- it can be a program that is in place to give people a dignified end to their life as it was intended- we should be to discuss this without "throwing people in the streets" rhetoric Everything i the Federal Government shoud fall under this scrutiny "Does it work, does it add value, can it be done by States, can it be done less expensive.

The Federal Budget will not be balanced without one of two things happening: 1. Changes to the Structeral Big 3, Defense, HHS or SS 2. Sharp Increase in Tax Rates Considering each party is a staunch defender of one of those items and will not budge on the other, I can't see balanced budgets during an Obama or Romney presidency, maybe beyond that. These parties will not change anything, we have seen it again and again. The only real answer is taking their reposinsibilites and control away from them....

You sign those letter, in ink. Don't care if it is a form letter, you sign it in ink....

Thats a good description of it. Its big, the perks are juicy, and it runs on other people's money.... its no wonder when people get there, the motivation to stay is very strong. Monolithic Dedication to its own needs... that is awesome!

Right- but they do it anyway, and we spend Billion in a futile attempt to stop it. Do our efforts yield gains, I am sure they do. But the question is a cost benefit question, do we get enough out of the drug war to justify what we put in?

As far as the legalization of drugs, in my opinion, if a consenting adult want to smoke a joint, snort some lines, drop some acid, heck even shoot up some junk, who am I in a free country to say you cannot do that? As long as the don't drive or put other in danger, I don't see the harm... responsible people who value their life or want more, or don't desire to get into that behavior will refrain.... heck, alcohol is not only encouraged and of the norm, I know way more budding alcoholics and burnout from boozing that I do from any other illicit drug... On the other hand, 95% of the people I know use alcohol respsonsibly, and don't abuse... to me there is market for it, it will be served.... why do we have to spend Billions to make it harder for that market to function, at the same time become violent and fill up our prisons? As far as Fair and Equal goes, it is just a fact of life that things are not fair..... Many people want the Government to "Fix" inequality, but they don't step back to examine the reality that Big Government is the pivot point of inequality... I mean, wealthy people and large compaines have huge outlays to advoacte polcity that benefits their interests.... and that money helps win elections, thereby a return on investment must be repaid... think Defense contracts, Solydra, Auto Bailouts, Cash for Clunkers and a myriad of other Juicy deals... The person, in the end holding the tab is the person who fill out the 1040 and pays the taxes.... You have wonder in the end, Jamie, if Government has created more of the problems we have today and the solution only cost more and excerbate the problem further.... have they cut off at the knees they very people they intend to help? In the end, should the Federal Government do anything, instead defer to citizens, communities, regions and States to decide?

Yeah, basically this sums it up. Its like a contagious disease that plagues DC... go there with principles intentions, leave with a reserved parking spot at the club.... LOL I read a line in John Stossels book that made so much sense I could barely believe it. He basically says what we need is not politcians with the "answers", but elected officials with sharply curtailed reponsibilities... I think that hits it on the head again and again.. (that is paraphrased of course)

Should I ask for The Big Cat, he's No kitty? If you're buying, I am in.... Edit: Why did I write pooossy and it changed it to Kitty in this post? Is it the thought police?

My contention with the party is social issues. I don't like Abortion, but I believe it is a woman's choice to make that decision. I believe if two homersexuals want to get married, that is their business. I believe that drugs should be legalized, and that this drug war is wasteful and unproductive. My last contention is the party, in general being a Government expander... while there are some true small government stalwarts in the GOP, they are just as guilty of a !@#$ed up Fed that the Democrats..... the parties both expand power and scope, they just do it in different ways....

you can't never go full retard

I would think enough electroal victories to secure the win?

Obamacare, but scaled wayyyy back. There is just no reason health reform needed to be 4500 pages long.... but then again the tax code doesn't need to be 72,000 pages I am sure of that as well... lol

Just want the ability to buy health insurance as a single policy, preexisitng conditions aside. If that is in place, you can dismantle most of the Federal Government for all I care...

Basically that, and more and more informed Americans (although in the minority) are starting realize that after all the conventions are done, all the add are finshed, the two politcal parties are net Government expanders... they just waste the money on different items, but they are bother exapanders... keep healthcare reform in place and pare it down, vote for Libertarians....

Ann Romney's speech.... meh.... analysts felt the speech was primarly to make Romney seem more "human" or whatever that means.... again, most people vote for who they like even though there is major contention about this fact on this board, and Romney is not warm, fuzzy or personable... its not a good or bad thing, just waht it is- more important is his policy platform. Christie's address was outstanding, I thought. The more I hear him speak, the more I see him in action, the more I like his no nonsense approach. I won't we voting for a Republican this time around, and likely will vote for a Libertarian from then on, but he is very impressive.

Its just a classic case of BullDozer versus Activist.... The CAT D-9 wins more often than not.....

Physicians often weed through the fat, sick trainwrecks to cherry pick the healthy people- it professional laziness for the most part, but from the providers prespective, do I want to see a bunch of sick people that gobble up all my time, or see healthy people so I can get out of the office and do something I want with my time.... In Private Medicine the provider just turn people away that are annoying ann high risk... if Academic Medicine, they concoct some research project that gets paid on Grants that gets them out of seeing patients.... Bottomline- there are alot of provider wo do not want to see sick, or fat people.

Romney: "You have to be !@#$ing kidding me...." Its hard tp imagine a situation where Akin and Ryan being on the same bill, a bill seen as fringe and extreme in the debate over abortion is a good thing for the Romney campaign. To me, this is yet another distraction from talking about the economy (which is good for O/Biden), and begins to create doubt in the mind independents and younger voters if they can vote for a Republican ticket with a guy like Ryan on it.... I know that Romney the the top of the ticket, but what does policy and this country look like with Paul Ryan in that position should something happen to Romney? While I respect Ryan's beliefs in personhood, I believe in a woman's right to choose... it would not necessarily be my choice to abort, but I don't speak for everyone. This is the issue with someone with Ryan on the ticket when you are trying depserately to convince the moderates and independents....

I think we're all missing the point. A Pizza Hut pie is worth shooting a kid for, especially is breadsticks are involved.

Oh, yeah, I know you did.... lol

That was the message... now if you say Joe's looks dumb for using Y'all when he is not southern, yes. If you suggest his comment about "Why can't we lead in the Vehicle Markets in the 20th Century" is Chronollogically incorrect, I agree. If you suggest he said Paul Ryan was congressman and Governor in the same 30 minutes, yes. Uh, Joe Biden, obviously..... he should stick to a teleprompter- althought likeable and decent, he makes alot of !@#$ ups speaking off the cuff

It was sarcasm

I watched the clip, I don't see the big deal- he was suggesting, from how I took it, that riddng the system of regulations and protections of the financial system would put middle classer back in chains... I took it as more control and victimization of the middle class as the hands of the system.... alot of people are in economic chains, whether it be in an underwater home, school loans, CC debt, etc- Whether it was their choice and stupidity that got them there, that is a whole different debate.