Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2012-10-04 15:08:18

I agree with ark, Romney was all about the illusion of being specific on the questions people actually wanted answers to going into this thing: if there aren't enough tax deductions for the rich to revoke that would pay for the tax cut of 20% which has been in Romney's plan for a year and a half, then where does that money come from if not by eliminating tax deductions for the working and middle class? When questioned or challenged that his numbers don't add up, Romney just ignored it and kept repeating the same figures as if nothing had happened, then he suddenly denied he supported a tax cut for the rich at all and swore it was only a tax cut for the middle class; now he actually has his surrogates going on the airwaves today with the message that yes it's a reduction of 20% across the board, but that means it's a tax cut only for the middle class and NOT a tax cut for the rich because it's only just a tax "reduction" for the rich - that's literally what some assfuck Senator from Utah said on my TV this morning. If America falls for that, we are stupid (fuck, we're still paying for buying into the message ten years ago in our deficit and in our economy).

I think Burnsy is right though that Romney was more specific that he ever had been before. The problem was that the bar he set for specifics was so low before.

I will say this, though, he definitely prepared really hard and got a lot of words in, and made the best use of his time in terms of taking opportunities to make points; I just don't think Romney denying his tax plan for the last year and a half all of a sudden in a debate can work in the age of youtube, or claiming he supports health insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions when his position up until last night has been to do so only in cases of prior continuous health insurance coverage, or claiming in the debate that states should make the calls on issues like education before twenty minutes later in the same debate talking about the importance of the federal government in bypassing the states and giving education money directly to people.

It's only convincing if a person's attention span is four seconds long, and can't see someone pandering to them with rehearsed and often contradictory answers a mile away. The only actual spontaneous line in that entire 90 minute policy debate from either guy was not from Romney, it was from Obama on Romney's sudden dropping of the plan he campaigned on for eighteen months: "his big bold idea is... never mind." When Romney can be spontaneous about an answer other than "happy anniversary", I might be slightly impressed.

[default homepage]

[print][

9:55:11am Apr 25,2024
load time 0.00722 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]