Anonymous wrote:
Our President had no substantial role in offing him other than saying YES when asked to proceed on an operation that was planned for years/months, by highly skilled leaders and special forces teams.

If the mission had failed and all the SEAL team members had been killed, would you have blamed Obama? As a follow-on, who do you blame for the failure of the attempt to rescue the Iran embassy hostages?

Anonymous wrote:
Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

This is something I see lots of -- lots of seemingly educated people who vote Republican mostly because they're rich and want to keep their money. Okay, I get it. That's the priority for some -- hell, if I were rich, who knows? Maybe I too wouldn't want to share a tiny percentage of my wealth with people who really need it. But anyway, what about all of the lower-to-middle class people who vote for R/R? That I don't get. The rich and greedy people, okay, maybe I can understand your position a bit. But those who aren't rich - why are you voting for R/R?

ANd nobody has chimed in on that PP who asked a R/R supporter to provide some basics on these candidates' positions/plans on some of the top issues. I can't find that information anywhere!!

Anonymous wrote:
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT FOCUSED ON VAGINAS - WHY ARE YOU? THIS IS A CREEPY "VAGINA MONOLOGUE" that is not funny. If you are worried about getting pregnant, GET a JOB and buy BIRTH CONTROL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thank you, I have a job, and I have birth control. It's not me I'm worried about. As a wealthy, educated white woman abortion is not likely to be my personal problem.

It's also not my personal problem when black people were made to sit in the back of the bus. It's still wrong and I won't stand for it. Even if my personal selfish interests are not affected.

If Republicans don't care about "vaginas" - by which what we actually mean is women's reproductive choices - why are they focused on passing laws on ultrasounds, laws defining pregnancy, laws talking about mentruation, and laws talking about making people bury their fetuses? You know those are all actual bills proposed this past year by Republicans, right?

I am a Pro-Choice Republican focused on the economy. I am glad you are an activist focused on reproductive freedom and civil rights. I grew up post-racism and post-reproductive rights in the Northeast. These were never an issue until I moved to DC. The OP asked how can I vote for Romney/Ryan and I answered. Good day.

They are not Obama. It's that simple. It's the only other option.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 7:36 and I want to add it is insulting to claim the war on women only involves policy about reproduction. The War on Women is being conducted by people who do not respect the fact that people support different candidates. I have been a pro-choice Republican my entire life. I do not like being told there is a war on everything that is surrounding me and in me in order to vote for a man who campaigned against war and certainly couldn't win one.

Why don't you compare the number of Americans killed defeating Qaddafi to the number of Americans killed in Bush's invasion of Iraq. Then, let's have a discussion about who is capable of winning a war.

Bush said he didn't care very much about OBL. Romney said, "It’s Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth And Spending Billions Of Dollars Just Trying To Catch One Person."

When Obama said that if he had actionable intelligence about the location of OBL, he would deploy forces to an allied country to attack him, Romney said, "I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama To Enter An Ally Of Ours."

Yeah, Obama didn't win that one, did he?

They got lucky on that very lucky and they know it and so do you. None of the past presidents could catch him, not one would give one credit for getting it done.

You know what they say, "you make your own luck." Obama explicitly said that if he had actionable intelligence, he would not hesitate to enter an allied country to get OBL. When he became President, he raised the priority of going after OBL. Sure, most intelligence operations involve a certain amount of luck, but the break wouldn't have come if the US hadn't been trying. Both Bush and Romney down-played getting OBL. Romney explicitly criticized Obama for his stated policy of being willing to enter an allied nation. When the time came, Obama did what he said that he would do. You are putting a lot of faith in Romney being a liar and doing what he said he wouldn't do. I'll grant you, it's a good bet that Romney is lying anytime he is talking. But, Obama made his own luck. Everyone should give him credit for that.

Our President had no substantial role in offing him other than saying YES when asked to proceed on an operation that was planned for years/months, by highly skilled leaders and special forces teams. You or I would have done the same, when presented by such a complete plan, with all kinds of mitigations and backups, using the best or intelligence and best resources, with a decent risk factor, all built by one Admiral.   Note - our president , in his usual way, also had a document signed that said he was abdicating responsibility if anything went wrong.  That's our President - taking credit when all goes well, but blameless, not engaged , not involved, if it goes badly. In the military,  the Commander is responsible and accountable.  Our president is only selectively accountable . He cherry picks.. and this was one of his cherry picks. He doesnt have many, because pretty much everything he has touched during the last 4 years has been a disaster .   Therefore, I'll stand by my statement. I will give you this: it is difficult to ascertain the truth with all the PR smoke and mirrors. 

As a follow on, what president would have gone on national TV , before all the intelligence was assessed, to proclaim victory and reveal details that should not have been revealed? Is it any wonder a member of the Seal team, following our President's lead and the Administration's lead, with the numerous national security leaks, writes a book to reveal the story? The SEAL member didn't push the first domino of ubiquitous leaks and I doubt he'll be the last until our nation's extreme divisions heal. If he and his team starts to do this, then, I will give him credit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney will support the interest of big business, Wall Street, and the super rich. His presidency will put the struggling middle class into utter peril. On top of that he has picked a running mate who is Neanderthal on the abortion issue.

I can't imagine many people beyond 1%ers and pro-lifers voting for Romney.

p.s. "What's the Matter with Kansas" is an excellent read.

Pauline Kael once famously said "How did Nixon win? None of my friends voted for him."

You can assume middle class republican voters are stupid (the eastern elitist convention) or you can try to understand their core beliefs and accept that while different from yours they may indeed be defendable. If no one but 1% and pro-lifers vote for Romney then it's pretty much an Obama sweep, no?

You're too calm, rational and funny. Please leave this thread.

maybe it's because I don't have a vagina? uh oh, now I'm in trouble...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and maybe I don't mean persuade, but at least make me understand why you might feel the way you do. I don't have to agree, but I'd like to at least feel like it's a rational, understandable decision to vote republican this year.

Just curious: what % of voters do you think vote based on actual platforms, policies, etc., rather than political party, single issues or height/hair/good looks of the candidates?

I'm sure a disappointingly large number (as evidenced by my facebook news feed). But I'm looking to hear from the few percent who really are voting on actual policies and I'm wondering what those policies are and why they think they are better than what Obama stands for.

Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

Oh good. More unsubstantiated sweeping generalizations. Please tell us how dems took your hard earned money. Which policy did the dems pass that took more of your hard earned money, and how is that policy bad and not worth the tax increase or whatever you are referring to? Do you even know how they took your money, or do you believe it simply because your favorite talking head told you that? If they did in fact take more of your hard earned money than the republicans did, then maybe you should figure out the "God-knows-what" and you might find that it was put to good use and will ultimately benefit you. good luck with your research!

Calm down. I said I can't help answer the question and I was just offering context in response to the actual question posed. The pp who I was responding to seemed to accept my response for what it was. And what on earth do you mean by asking if "even know how they took my money"? I know because last year I wrote checks totaling more than $450,000 and sent them to state and Federal tax collectors.

No, you see, it's people like you who drive me up the freaking wall. I don't care what question you are answering. You stated, on a forum that has hundreds of views so far, that dems are taking your hard earned money. I'm simply asking you to tell us what you are referring to. We are tax payers too, so if you know something that we don't, please share. But if you have no idea what you are talking about and are just offering context (whatever you mean by that), then you need to STFU.

So your answer (if you want to call it that) is that you paid taxes. this is new for you? You did not have to pay taxes under Bush? Wow. No wonder you want Obama to lose. Are you trying to say that Obama has raised your taxes? If so, then please tell us what tax increase you are talking about. If you have received a tax increase from Obama, you need to do some math before you tell us about it though. You need to consider all of the tax cuts you have received under Obama. I'll give you a head start: look at the Payroll Tax Holiday, 2010 Tax deal, and the 2009 stimulus. Now. You need to crunch your numbers. Compare your tax increase to your tax cuts, and then tell us how it turned out. Don't care to do all that work? fine, then we are back to STFU!

BTW, I know that there are tax increases that have been proposed by Obama, but that's a different discussion. I'm happy to have that discussion with you, but this is not the one because you clearly blamed Obama for the $450,000 you have already paid in taxes. You didn't pay that because of tax increases that do not yet exist. So again, why are you blaming Obama for the taxes you paid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney will support the interest of big business, Wall Street, and the super rich. His presidency will put the struggling middle class into utter peril. On top of that he has picked a running mate who is Neanderthal on the abortion issue.

I can't imagine many people beyond 1%ers and pro-lifers voting for Romney.

p.s. "What's the Matter with Kansas" is an excellent read.

Pauline Kael once famously said "How did Nixon win? None of my friends voted for him."

You can assume middle class republican voters are stupid (the eastern elitist convention) or you can try to understand their core beliefs and accept that while different from yours they may indeed be defendable. If no one but 1% and pro-lifers vote for Romney then it's pretty much an Obama sweep, no?

You're too calm, rational and funny. Please leave this thread.

Anonymous wrote:Romney will support the interest of big business, Wall Street, and the super rich. His presidency will put the struggling middle class into utter peril. On top of that he has picked a running mate who is Neanderthal on the abortion issue.

I can't imagine many people beyond 1%ers and pro-lifers voting for Romney.

p.s. "What's the Matter with Kansas" is an excellent read.

Pauline Kael once famously said "How did Nixon win? None of my friends voted for him."

You can assume middle class republican voters are stupid (the eastern elitist convention) or you can try to understand their core beliefs and accept that while different from yours they may indeed be defendable. If no one but 1% and pro-lifers vote for Romney then it's pretty much an Obama sweep, no?

REPUBLICANS ARE NOT FOCUSED ON VAGINAS - WHY ARE YOU? THIS IS A CREEPY "VAGINA MONOLOGUE" that is not funny. If you are worried about getting pregnant, GET a JOB and buy BIRTH CONTROL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thank you, I have a job, and I have birth control. It's not me I'm worried about. As a wealthy, educated white woman abortion is not likely to be my personal problem.

It's also not my personal problem when black people were made to sit in the back of the bus. It's still wrong and I won't stand for it. Even if my personal selfish interests are not affected.

If Republicans don't care about "vaginas" - by which what we actually mean is women's reproductive choices - why are they focused on passing laws on ultrasounds, laws defining pregnancy, laws talking about mentruation, and laws talking about making people bury their fetuses? You know those are all actual bills proposed this past year by Republicans, right?

Yes, I do have daughters. You are making a great deal of life choices for people you don't know anything about. My children are learning astutely, "It is the economy, Stupid." Stay focused, people, and calm down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's utter bullshit. The whole point is to NOT make choice for people you don't know anything about. The point is to leave them FREE to make their own choices.

The only jobs created by obama's laws are government workers and lawyers to sue against/enforce them. How can an economy be sustained on these two types of jobs which are expenses NOT income creators. If you swing all of the workforce towards these types of jobs you will run out of money because you can't tax enough from a tax created job to sustain itself. This is being played out in Europe right now

A famous woman once said “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”

Anonymous wrote:"He hasn't been supportive of additional laws that aim, misguidedly in my view, to achieve equal pay. That's not the same thing about being against equal pay."

NP here. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which has been the focal point of this debate for the last few years, "amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck." You can read more on its wiki page, but the point is the law doesn't "aim to achieve equal pay." Rather, it aims to give women more time to file a lawsuit when they discover they are being discriminated against. Many Republicans opposed the bill.

The usual argument for that opposition - at least as stated by McCain, if I remember correctly - is that there would be a flood of lawsuits. If that's true, it would be because (A) a lot of women are being discriminated against and/or (B) women are just super litigious and enjoy filing frivolous lawsuits. If it's (A), then shouldn't they have the chance to sue? If it's (B), shouldn't judges/juries who hear the facts of each case be the ones to decide whether it has merit? How can lawmakers know ahead of time that all these women will by filing frivolous lawsuits?

This goes to a fundamental difference in my and your view about the role of government and laws. I do not believe all ills should be addressed by government or litigation. I'm not worried about frivolous lawsuits but I do believe (a) that making it more costly to employers to hire women makes them less likely to do so and (b) more fundamentally, that it isn't government's role to force an employer to provide equal pay for equal work. Equal pay is the smart thing to do economically because you get the best workers and it is the right thing to do morally. That doesn't mean it should be enforced by law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and maybe I don't mean persuade, but at least make me understand why you might feel the way you do. I don't have to agree, but I'd like to at least feel like it's a rational, understandable decision to vote republican this year.

Just curious: what % of voters do you think vote based on actual platforms, policies, etc., rather than political party, single issues or height/hair/good looks of the candidates?

I'm sure a disappointingly large number (as evidenced by my facebook news feed). But I'm looking to hear from the few percent who really are voting on actual policies and I'm wondering what those policies are and why they think they are better than what Obama stands for.

Well that's a different question entirely. One I can't help you with because I'm a white, well-educated, new rich, usually Republican voter who doesn't want to see more and more of my hard-earned money being taken by Democrats and going to God-knows-what and not doing much good. And, yes, I'm a woman and I have daughters.

Oh good. More unsubstantiated sweeping generalizations. Please tell us how dems took your hard earned money. Which policy did the dems pass that took more of your hard earned money, and how is that policy bad and not worth the tax increase or whatever you are referring to? Do you even know how they took your money, or do you believe it simply because your favorite talking head told you that? If they did in fact take more of your hard earned money than the republicans did, then maybe you should figure out the "God-knows-what" and you might find that it was put to good use and will ultimately benefit you. good luck with your research!

Calm down. I said I can't help answer the question and I was just offering context in response to the actual question posed. The pp who I was responding to seemed to accept my response for what it was. And what on earth do you mean by asking if "even know how they took my money"? I know because last year I wrote checks totaling more than $450,000 and sent them to state and Federal tax collectors.

Anonymous wrote:My reasons...
Smaller govt
Less regulation on small businesses
Lower taxes
Restore USA as a world leader and I agree with American exceptionalism... There is no moral equivelency between USA and some other countries.
Enforcement of our immigration laws
No selection by the Admin or Justice Dept on which laws will be upheld.
Someone who can govern with help from across the isle ( romney has a history of governing in a liberal state)I am pro choice and pretty middle of the road on social issues but I dont vote on those issues. Neither party has everything I support so I am picking the one that has the most

While Romney does have that on his resume, I think you're fooling yourself if you think his presidency will involve bipartisanship. He's not the issue - it's the GOP-controlled house. With a Republican in the White House, they're going to be feeling their oats more than ever, if that's possible.

Note - not to say Obama is a whole lot better at this, unless you count being weak-spined (assuming he has one at all) and caving on almost everything to be "bipartisanship."