The RNC

[johnk5150]

Wow did Eastwood come off old and badly.

[Crazy Levi]

Wow did Eastwood come off old and badly.

It's ok. In a few days I'm sure nobody will remember that the republicans sent a beloved American icon out there to humiliate himself, completely embarrassing the GOP in the process.

Instead, they'll remember that Romney offered absolutely ZERO information on what he plans to do as president, except for starting wars with Russia and Iran.

Because, you know, that's what Americans really want right now more than a plan to fix the economy, or in fact, do anything else.

USA!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Because, you know, that's what Americans really want right now more than a plan to fix the economy, or in fact, do anything else.

He stole his 5 point economic plan from McCain who stole it from Bush. The only difference is the order in which he summarized his plan.

Romney Will Solve the Crisis with the Exact Same GOP Plan of 2008, 2006, 2004...
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/ro ... -2006-2004

Romney plan for the economy:

And unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.

[1] First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

[2] Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.

[3] Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.

[4] Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.

[5] And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.

McCain plan in 2008:

I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy, and it often sees that your government hasn't even noticed... That's going to change on my watch...

[3] I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them...

[4] I will cut government spending. He will increase it...

[5] We all know that keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs...

[4] Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend, and invest as you see fit...

[2] Education -- education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained, but what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice...

[1] We'll attack -- we'll attack the problem on every front. We'll produce more energy at home.. Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.

Bush plan in 2004:

To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business.

[5] To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.

[1] To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

[3] To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.

[5] And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess...

[4] To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He's proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.

Bush's 2006 state of the Union address:

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations...

[5] Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.

[4] Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending. And last year you passed bills that cut this spending.

[3] Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow... With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out- produce or out-compete the American worker...

[1] Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
==============================

The plan that added less than ZERO jobs to the private sector under Bush is Romney's plan to create 12 million jobs in 4 years.

[Dr J Jones]

now show us Obama's plan...

[Crazy Levi]

now show us Obama's plan...

Why should we even bother?

Romney has clearly already won this election by promising two brand new wars to an American public that is not in any way tired of being at war. he didn't need to present any other ideas to win the public over, which is clearly why he didn't.

Between that and this beautifully orchestrated convention that went off without a single hitch, I'd say Romney has this one in the bag. Might as well stop campaigning now.

Although he should probably step up the Birther stuff a little bit, I think he's being a little too subtle with it at this point.

[Danzig in the Dark]

[cantstopthemusic]

Romney has clearly already won this election by promising two brand new wars

Lie a little harder, LIEberal Levi.

[Crazy Levi]

Romney has clearly already won this election by promising two brand new wars

Lie a little harder, LIEberal Levi.

I am not a liberal. I am completely on board with team Romneys policy of taking NO guff from the Russian Bear. We will show the ruskies that America is Not to be trifled with.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way cantstop.

[Turner Coates]

I am not a liberal. I am completely on board with team Romneys policy of taking NO guff from the Russian Bear. We will show the ruskies that America is Not to be trifled with.

What exactly is the major threat from them these days?
Romney sounds like Jesse Helms, who often ranted about the menace of "Red Chiner".

[Crazy Levi]

Romney sounds exactly like what he is: a guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple, just like Bush.

He has no new ideas, so his campaign decided that a nostalgic speech with a nice dash of cold-war flavor is gonna somehow resonate with voters.

Obama is going to DESTROY him in the debates.

I'm still waiting for cantstop to explain to me why it was a good idea for Romney to talk tough about Russia and Iran, which literally NO American citizens give a single shit about right now.

But, since he can't write posts with more than 9 words in them, I doubt such an explanation is forthcoming.

[Turner Coates]

Romney sounds exactly like what he is: a guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple, just like Bush.

He has no new ideas, so his campaign decided that a nostalgic speech with a nice dash of cold-war flavor is gonna somehow resonate with voters.

Obama is going to DESTROY him in the debates.

Agreed.
I just hope there aren't too many Vice Presidential debates scheduled.

[Crazy Levi]

Actually the vp debate will be interesting.

We all know Biden is insane, but Ryan has to be smarting from the reaction to his speech, which even a fox news commentator said was "cow dung" and possibly contained
More lies than any political speech in history.

He's going to have to defend his lies, and try to avoid new ones.

[brotherplanet]

What's sad is no matter who wins we'll still be stuck with this...

[Luminiferous]

I didn't get to watch any of last night's festivities since my band was rehearsing, but I caught some of the clips on youtube and a couple of the networks, so let me get this straight.

The GOP has their convention shortened by a storm, so while this should be a very serious time with unemployment and economical woes plaguing the country, do they use the limited time to give the country a view of their fix it plan?
No just before the presidential nominee's speech they have a legendary Hollywood actor/producer/director come out onstage.
That icon proceeds to attempt an ad-libbed improv act with an empty chair like it's a ventriloquist doll?? Seriously?

THIS is how the GOP wants to convince me and other's that they are serious in their plan to fix America? As if Romney's attempted birther quips aren't lame enough, they actually believe sending Eastwood out to talk to an empty chair was clever? The Romney campaign claimed it was a break from all the political speeches.
I want a break from the political speeches, there's always Comedy Central.

So after watching the Romney speech, I have to agree with some of the reviews on here of it. It wasn't good. Pretty much all I got out of it was the usual "I'm at least better than the guy in there now!"
I came away feeling like I watched a used car salesman try to sell me a "49 Pindowski coupe..

[Turner Coates]

"Eastwood received a 42 percent tax credit in 2008 after shifting the setting of his movie "Gran Torino" from Minneapolis to Detroit, a city dubbed by The New York Times as "the home of 42 percent tax credits for films made there."

Eastwood also took advantage of a Massachusetts tax credit in 2003 for filming "Mystic River" in that state.

His reliance on government aid has extended beyond U.S. borders. The Hollywood Reporter wrote in 2009 that his movie "Invictus" received a tax incentive package from the South African government that knocked $5 million off the film's budget. Eastwood's 2010 film "Hereafter" qualified for a 20 percent rebate from the French government and a received a 25 percent tax credit from the British government after certain scenes were filmed in each of the countries."

full article here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/3 ... 45054.html

[Crazy Levi]

Like I said, this isn't about Eastwood and I don't thnk it's necessary to keep picking on him.

There's nothing wrong with him taking tax breaks to shoot movies, especially if he's making em here.

And he never said anything about "big government" or any of that stuff. Mostly he just came Off as an old man who REALLY doesn't like Obama. Just like tons of Other old white guys like cantstop.

Fact is, he doesn't share the republican parties views on most things, and, even in his speech he attributed things to Romney that are incorrect. Romney, for instance, shares the same timetable for leaving Afghanistan as Obama. He isn't gonna pull them out "tommirow!!!!" like Eastwood wheezed.

It ain't about Clint. His appearance is just another sign that Romney and the GOP have no plan, no clue, and no ideas.

[cantstopthemusic]

no plan, no clue, and no ideas.

I think they're already in the White House.

[Crazy Levi]

no plan, no clue, and no ideas.

I think they're already in the White House.

So be honest.

It really doesn't bother you that Romney offered not one single clue as to how his presidency would be different?

It really doesn't bother you that he offered up not one single specific?

Take your time.

[cantstopthemusic]

no plan, no clue, and no ideas.

I think they're already in the White House.

So be honest.

It really doesn't bother you that Romney offered not one single clue as to how his presidency would be different?

It really doesn't bother you that he offered up not one single specific?

Take your time.

No, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Jimmy fucking Carter would be an improvement over Obama.

Almost.

[roxxxtar]

no plan, no clue, and no ideas.

I think they're already in the White House.

So be honest.

It really doesn't bother you that Romney offered not one single clue as to how his presidency would be different?

It really doesn't bother you that he offered up not one single specific?

Take your time.

Have you ever watched a convention speech before? I'm sure you didn't watch this one either, and you're just repeating whatever NBC told you to say.
It's not a fucking State Of The Union address.

[brotherplanet]

Have you ever watched a convention speech before? I'm sure you didn't watch this one either, and you're just repeating whatever NBC told you to say.
It's not a fucking State Of The Union address.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Convention speeches are almost always pep rally speeches with little to no specifics mentioned. Romney simply followed form.

I don't recall Obama saying how he was going to close Gitmo when he gave his speech four years ago or how he was going to keep the unemployment rate below 8%, which is good because in the end he didn't do either.

[Luminiferous]

I have one question to all the ones who keep bringing up the Gitmo closing promise.

WHERE are the detainees to be sent? From what I have seen and heard of, the transfer is being held up by a bunch of legal and political bullshit.. (an untypical surprise in Washington I know)
Top it off with many of the same people complaining it's not closed as promised are sputtering out the NIMBY argument when it comes to where the alleged terrorists are to be moved to..
While there was talk of moving some of the detainee's to Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois to house some of the detainees from Gitmo, that now remains stalled in Congress, which has rejected funding for the prison and remains reluctant to change a law that prohibits uncharged detainees from being brought to U.S. soil.

And while the Illinois gov was pleased about it possibly moving there, as would most people nowadays because of the possible economic and employment opportunities, but a bunch of people thought it would put a bulls eye on there for terrorists to hit. So NIMBY strikes again.

I've tried to dig up a reason and this one comes pretty damned close to explaining why Gitmo remains open for business.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/ob ... EIWZZbLkiu

So again, WHERE are the alleged terrorist detainee's to be sent?

[Crazy Levi]

Is this for real? Or are you republitards (lol!) stupider on holiday weekends?

No. I'm quite sure that never in the history of conventions - especially one where a non-incumbent making the case for replacing the current president and introducing himself to the American people - has the candidate actually spelled out specific things he's going to do while president.

They never do anything more than talk about their moms, wives, dads, and kids, and threaten the Russians.

I'm on fucking vacation so I'm not going to prove you idiots are talking out of your asses as usual. I'll do it next week when I'm back to work.

Fucking mongs.

[brotherplanet]

I have one question to all the ones who keep bringing up the Gitmo closing promise.

WHERE are the detainees to be sent? From what I have seen and heard of, the transfer is being held up by a bunch of legal and political bullshit.. (an untypical surprise in Washington I know)
Top it off with many of the same people complaining it's not closed as promised are sputtering out the NIMBY argument when it comes to where the alleged terrorists are to be moved to..
While there was talk of moving some of the detainee's to Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois to house some of the detainees from Gitmo, that now remains stalled in Congress, which has rejected funding for the prison and remains reluctant to change a law that prohibits uncharged detainees from being brought to U.S. soil.

And while the Illinois gov was pleased about it possibly moving there, as would most people nowadays because of the possible economic and employment opportunities, but a bunch of people thought it would put a bulls eye on there for terrorists to hit. So NIMBY strikes again.

I've tried to dig up a reason and this one comes pretty damned close to explaining why Gitmo remains open for business.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/ob ... EIWZZbLkiu

So again, WHERE are the alleged terrorist detainee's to be sent?

Look, I agree with your last sentence, but I'm also not the one who promised to close it down. I'm simply pointing out President Obama's bullshit, which the left embraced.

[Danzig in the Dark]

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Look, I agree with your last sentence, but I'm also not the one who promised to close it down. I'm simply pointing out President Obama's bullshit, which the left embraced.

LMFAO, there you go again. You're not pointing out "bullshit." You're misrepresenting what happened. He tried to move the prisoners and the House voted him down. Perhaps if he made no attempt to fulfill the promise you would have some "bullshit" to call him on. However, he tried to shut it down and was blocked by Congress.

House votes to prohibit moving Gitmo detainees
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010 ... tanamo-bay

[KneelandBobDylan]

[Luminiferous]

I have one question to all the ones who keep bringing up the Gitmo closing promise.

WHERE are the detainees to be sent? From what I have seen and heard of, the transfer is being held up by a bunch of legal and political bullshit.. (an untypical surprise in Washington I know)
Top it off with many of the same people complaining it's not closed as promised are sputtering out the NIMBY argument when it comes to where the alleged terrorists are to be moved to..
While there was talk of moving some of the detainee's to Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois to house some of the detainees from Gitmo, that now remains stalled in Congress, which has rejected funding for the prison and remains reluctant to change a law that prohibits uncharged detainees from being brought to U.S. soil.

And while the Illinois gov was pleased about it possibly moving there, as would most people nowadays because of the possible economic and employment opportunities, but a bunch of people thought it would put a bulls eye on there for terrorists to hit. So NIMBY strikes again.

I've tried to dig up a reason and this one comes pretty damned close to explaining why Gitmo remains open for business.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/ob ... EIWZZbLkiu

So again, WHERE are the alleged terrorist detainee's to be sent?

Look, I agree with your last sentence, but I'm also not the one who promised to close it down. I'm simply pointing out President Obama's bullshit, which the left embraced.

Fair enough, but you keep resorting right back to your repeated claims of "BUT HE PROMISED!!!"


HOW is the president supposed to close Gitmo without the support of congress? He signed the executive order right after he took office authorizing the closing.
Congressional lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States. So now where is the money supposed to come from to move the prisoners?

When the promise was made ALL these same damn people were demanding the rights violations be investigated and Gitmo be closed, but when it came time to do so, the administration found several major roadblocks.

They would also have to appease all the bleeding hearts who want the detainee's rights not violated and the ones who want the the law of uncharged detainees not being held on American soil, BUT also want these people tried fairly in an American court, BUT don't want them held anywhere near their communities, BUT keep repeating HOW COME IT AIN'T CLOSED YET 'BAMA?? HUHHH?? PROMISE BREAKER!!

It's hard for any American president to sign on or veto something and go on with his promise when there is no bill to do it.

Look I'm all for holding people accountable for broken promises, but bottom line, most Republicans in Congress want it kept open to keep terrorists there and not on American soil.
So until someone finally gives a shit to come to a compromise, the promise is going to remain unfulfilled. Sad but true...

[Machado]

Where was George W. Bush? He was only the President approx 3 1/2 years ago?
Not having him at the convention just about says it all:
Even the Repubs are aware how terrible of a job George W. did, so they did not invite
him to speak.
Funny how the Repubs are basically ignoring US history between the final day
of Reagan's presidency and today's date