Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Posted by dockside (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 15, 12 at 16:48

LOL. He said what a lot of us have been saying.

I wonder if the people in his audience at the Values Voters Conference understood. Probably went over their head.

The Values Voters Conference has to be one of the most ridiculous events. Obviously, honesty is not one of their values. And to think that Paul Ryan felt compelled to address them (while reading everything from a teleprompter). Are they so afraid of their "base" staying home so they have to appear and grovel before these morons?

Here is a link that might be useful: No smart people here


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

For once Ricky said something I agree with.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

the part about the smart people not being on his side may be the only honest thing he's ever said


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

the part about the smart people not being on his side may be the only honest thing he's ever said

His presence is what makes the smart people not want to be aligned with his side.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Sep 15, 12 at 17:39

Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 2012
Being Smart is Overrated!


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Case in point vgkg is they have been saying how smart Obama is for 4 years. I rest my case.

Romney/Ryan 2012


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Case in point vgkg is they have been saying how smart Obama is for 4 years. I rest my case.
Romney/Ryan 2012

So, you think that is better to have someone that is dumb, stupid, incompetent, proven he had no concept of foreign affair, let alone how to deal with them, is destructive, lies, can't be trusted to follow through with anything that he says because he does nothing but flip flop on everything he says.

So this is what you consider better for the White House, for President of the USA?

How about some reasons for you support of Romney/Ryan.

Something more substantial than the standard absurdities, something more than anyone but Obama.

Can you actually articulate legitimate cohesive reasons to support Romney/Ryan?


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Conversely does that mean he has the dumb people on his side? Says a lot. They always disdained Obama for his smarts. But then again almost anyone would look like Einstein compared to the guy we had at the helm for eight looooong years.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

So, you think that is better to have someone that is dumb, stupid, incompetent, proven he had no concept of foreign affair, let alone how to deal with them, is destructive, lies, can't be trusted to follow through with anything that he says....

Hey, we had eight years of George W. Bush didn't we? I'm gonna pound sand on that one 'til the gophers go away.


-Ron-


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

"Case in point vgkg is they have been saying how smart Obama is for 4 years. I rest my case."

LOL!

"Smart" people believe a lot of dumb things.

The "smart" people believed Americans would "like" Obamacare after it passed!

The "smart" people believed Obama knew something about economics.

The "smart" people called it a "recovery summer." Three summers ago!

The "smart" people believed Obama would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year!

The "smart" people believed Anthony Weiner, a married man, never sent pictures of his crotch to women he didn't know.

The "smart" people actually believed Breitbart did it, and that Weiner would "nail Breitbart's arse to the wall!"

The "smart" people took Crystal Mangum's word for it when she cried rape. The crooked prosecutor who tried to railroad Duke Lacross players for a "crime" that never happened is now disbarred.

The "smart" people thought it would be a good idea to leave our ambassador to Libya without armed protection on 9/11.

The "smart" people believe Islamists are on a world wide rampage because of a video.

The "smart" people said Obama would make the US more respected in the world.

Obviously, being smart should never be confused with being wise.



 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

"President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob ... Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image."

Rick Santorum, speaking to a Tea Party group in Michigan (February 2012)


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

I think what says the most is that Santorum's followers don't realize that he insulted their intelligence.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

jodik: Exactly!


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Posted by littleonefb z5MA (My Page) on Sat, Sep 15, 12 at 18:10

So, you think that is better to have someone that is dumb, stupid, incompetent, proven he had no concept of foreign affair, let alone how to deal with them, is destructive, lies, can't be trusted to follow through with anything that he says because he does nothing but flip flop on everything he says.
***********************************************************
You couldn't have described Obama any more accurate.
Every attribute of what we already have in the WH.

You made sense on something for the first time :)


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Obviously, being smart should never be confused with being wise.

Obviously. Wise people know when people are dishonest. Smart people don't vote for them.

Perfect opportunity to post this weeks edition of Mitt's Mendacity's.


Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXXIV

By Steve Benen

-

Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:26 PM EDT.

In an interview aired this morning with George Stephanopoulos, the host told Mitt Romney that, despite his claims to the contrary, the Obama administration never showed sympathy for attackers in Egypt and Libya. How did the candidate explain the discrepancy? He didn't -- Romney dodged the question and let the lie stand.

Towards the end of the interview, however, Romney looked ahead to the upcoming debates and said he'll have a challenge to deal with: "[T]he president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren't true."

There's no sense of shame and no sense of irony.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll out today shows a plurality of Americans believes the Obama campaign is saying things "it believes to be true" rather than "intentionally misleading people." On the other hand, a plurality of Americans believes the opposite about the Romney campaign.

If anyone's wondering why the public has this impression, consider the 34th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.

1. At a campaign event in Virginia yesterday, Romney said he "couldn't believe" the president said "if you have a business you didn't build it, someone else did that."

Of course he couldn't believe it -- that's not even close to being true.

2. On Wednesday morning, Romney accused Obama administration officials of issuing an "apology for American values."

That never happened.

3. Romney also said, in response to violence in Libya and Egypt, that "the Obama administration's first response" to the violence was to "sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Not in this reality.

4. As part of the same statement, Romney also said that the Cairo Embassy "put out a statement after their grounds had been breached. Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach."

Nope, that's not true, either.

5. Pressed by reporters, Romney added, "I'm not going to take hypotheticals about what would have been known what and so forth. I, we responded last night to the events that happened in Egypt."

That's an understandable attempt to cover up the truth, but Romney's statement referred to "attacks on our diplomatic missions," not just Egypt.

6. In a Spanish-language television ad, Romney claims "Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare to pay for Obamacare."

Sigh.

7. In the same ad, Romney says, apparently to Latino seniors, "The money we have paid to guarantee our health care will be used for a new program that's not for us."

The Affordable Care Act includes extensive new benefits for seniors and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

8. The ad goes on to say Romney's plan "strengthens" Medicare "for future generations."

That's the exact opposite of the truth. Romney's plan and weakens the system's finances for future generations.

9. In a speech at the National Guard Association Convention in Reno, Nevada, Romney said, "Like you, I remember where I was on September 11th. I was originally planning to be in Battery Park in New York City, not far from the World Trade Center itself. But as it turned out, I was in Washington, D.C. to meet with members of Congress about preparations for the security of the upcoming Olympic Winter Games. A colleague and I were working in the office we had in the Ronald Reagan Building. It was just a few blocks from the White House. Someone rushed into our office and said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."

Well, not exactly. In his 2002 memoir, Romney offered a different version of events..

10. In the same speech, Romney added, "With less than two months to go before Election Day, I would normally speak to a gathering like this about the differences between me and my opponent's plans for military, and for our national security. There is a time and place for that. But this day is not that."

If Romney believed that, he wouldn't have accused the Obama administration, on 9/11, of "sympathizing" with Libyan thugs who killed four Americans in Libya.

11. In a speech in Mansfield, Ohio, Romney boasted, "If I'm president of the United States, when and if I become president of the United States, I will not take God out of my heart, I will not take God out of the public square, and I will not take it out of the platform of my party."

This is part of a larger attack suggesting Obama took the word "God" out of the Democratic Party platform. That's the opposite of what happened -- Obama put the reference back into his party's platform.

12. In the same speech, Romney added, "It's hard for me to understand how the president would have as his intention not only reducing our military through cuts in his budget, but also proceeding with a sequestration program will which cost about a trillion dollars for our military over the coming decade."

That's two falsehoods in one. First, the sequester would cut about $500 billion from the military budget, not $1 trillion. Second, Romney's not only lying, he's also condemning defense cuts crafted by his own party and endorsed by his own running mate.

13. In the next breath, Romney claimed, "This sequestration idea emanated from the White House."

No, it didn't. This sequestration idea emanated from House Republicans.

14. Romney went on to say the president "does not have a [jobs] plan."

Romney doesn't have to like the American Jobs Act, but he shouldn't get away with brazenly lying about its existence.

15. In the same remarks, Romney said in reference to the deficit, "[I]f we keep on spending a trillion dollars more every year than we take in, that's where we're headed [on the road to Greece]."

That's painfully untrue.

16. Romney also boasted, "I will get us on track to a balanced budget."

No, he won't. Romney says his plan "can't be scored," but independent budget analysts have found his agenda would make the deficit bigger, not smaller, and add trillions to the national debt.

17. Romney went on to argue, "President Obama wants to raise taxes on small business."

In reality, Obama has repeatedly cut taxes on small businesses -- by some counts, 18 times -- and if given a second term, his tax plan would have no effect on 97% of small businesses.

18. In an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Romney said of Obama, "He'd create more jobs, we don't have new jobs in America."

Sure we do.

19. Romney added, "We'd see new businesses start up, as a matter of fact, for the 30-year low in business startups."

This still isn't true.

20. Romney also told Baier that Obama has "doubled" the deficit.

Maybe Romney doesn't know what "double" means. The deficit on Obama's first day was $1.3 trillion. Last year, it was also $1.3 trillion. This year, it's projected to be $1.1 trillion. When he says the president "more than doubled" the deficit, as he has many times, Romney's lying.

21. Romney added, "I'm very specific as to what I'll do to get the economy going."

I'd love to fact-check this one, but I'm too busy laughing hysterically and can't see the keyboard.

22. Romney also said, "[W]hen this president was elected, he and his team announced to the American people that by now we'd have 5.4 percent unemployment.... He put it out for the American people."

This never happened.

23. Referencing the president's rescue of the American auto industry, Romney told Baier, "[T]he president took the car companies into bankruptcy. They went in bankruptcy exactly as I proposed."

Romney can take credit for Obama's policy, or he can condemn Obama's policy, but to do both is obviously dishonest (and more than a little ridiculous).

24. At a campaign event in Orange City, Iowa, Romney vowed, "I know how to get the private sector to create 12 million new jobs. I know what it's going to take to do that."

Putting aside the pesky detail that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the fact remains that if we do nothing, we're on track to create 12 million new American jobs over the next four years anyway.

25. In the same speech, Romney claimed Obama "is the first since Roosevelt, FDR, not to seek and receive trade promotion authority, to be able to work out new trade deals with other nations."

Obama finalized three separate trade deals in his first term: Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Why Romney keeps repeating this lie is a mystery.

26. Romney went on to argue, "The Chamber of Commerce carried out a survey. They asked businesses all over America, 'What's the impact of a particular piece of legislation?' And the people came back, 75 percent of the people surveyed said, 'That piece of legislation keeps us from hiring people.' That legislation we have to get rid of is known as 'ObamaCare,' and I'm going to get rid of it."

The "survey" is a joke. The Chamber, a pro-Republican lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is fundamentally dishonest.

27. On health care, Romney said, "[W]e have to make sure that people who have pre-existing conditions are able to get insured."

There's nothing even remotely true about this.

28. Romney went on to say that voters are going to soon ask themselves, "Do I want a president that's going to continue the policies that he put in place over the last four years, that led to record levels of unemployment?"

Unemployment peaked at 10% a few years ago. We haven't seen "record levels of unemployment" in generations, and the fact that Romney's willing to repeat such obvious falsehoods is disconcerting.

29. Romney added, "The other party will promise you lots of free stuff. But then ask them, how are they paying for it? And they'll say, 'Oh, we're borrowing money from China to do that.'"

First, Democrats actually intend to raise taxes on millionaires to "do that." Second, the implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this isn't true -- China only holds about 8% of the nation's debt.

30. At a media availability in Sioux City, Iowa, Romney said, if elected, he'll be "cracking down on China, going after China for currency manipulation, that's something neither President Bush nor President Obama has done."

Either Romney doesn't keep up on current events or he's not telling the truth.

31. On "Meet the Press," Romney told David Gregory that, in his tax plan, "we don't lower taxes on high income people. We're not going to have high income people pay less of the tax burden than they pay today. That's not what's going to happen."

That's extremely misleading. Romney's plan, according to independent analysis, will sharply reduce taxes for the wealthy.

32. In the same interview, Romney added, "I'm not going to increase the tax burden on middle income families."

There's ample evidence to the contrary.

33. Romney went on to say, "I've demonstrated that I have the capacity to balance budgets. I balanced them four years in a row in Massachusetts."

Actually, Romney left his successor with a deficit.

34. Romney added, "I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place."

Just one day later, Romney said he is going to get rid of all of health care reform.

35. On Medicare, Romney insisted "there's no change for anyone who's retired or is nearing retirement."

That's demonstrably wrong. Under Romney's policy, the cost of prescription drug prices and preventive care for seniors would go up immediately -- for current and future retirees.

36. On foreign policy, Romney argued that the day before his convention speech, "I went to the American Legion and spoke with our veterans there and described my policy as it relates to Afghanistan and other foreign policy and our military."

I wish he were telling the truth about this. He's not.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

I know-- you don't hafta say it-- the three dots stand for ANYTHING BUT


:-)


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

You are mistating facts about Romney/Ryan's plan regarding seniors. I know exactly what it says because my aunt asked me to look up the information for her as she is a senior. I read Romney/Ryan's plan as it relates to seniors 55+. Romney/Ryan will let seniors keep the advantage plans they have now which includes coverage for their medications. Medicare does not change for seniors 55+ at all. They will be allowed to keep the same coverage they have now until their death.

Romney/Ryan do want health care reform but not at the sacrifice of seniors as Obama is going to do come 2014. The Republicans had different suggestions for health care reform but Obama told them and I know I'm not quoting it exactly, but close enough. "I won the race and I'll be the one to say what goes." Yea, I know, difficult to realize how arrogant he is.

In Obama's health care bill, come 2014 seniors will be taken off of their advantage plans and put back on to regular Medicare which means they will be paying for all their own medications unless they can afford to pay for a supplemental plan. Their deductibles would increase and their benefits would decrease. When Obama talks about how wonderful he has made it for seniors by closing that "donut hole" in medication costs, that's just a smoke screen to divert attention away from what his long term plan is for seniors. You'll notice he never speaks about what will happen come 2014. Without their current advantage plans seniors will not be able to afford medications or hospital stays. Not only are the stays going to cost more money but under Medicare you are only allowed so many days and so many stays in the hospital. He's going to sacrifice the seniors so he can pay for health care for illegal alliens, etc.

Look it up on their individual plans, it's there all in black and white. Ryan/Romney have a plan to strengthen Medicare but all Obama can say is he has a plan to keep it solvent for 8 more years. What the heck happens on year 9? Oh yea, he's really thought this out I can tell.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Yes, that same privatization is always better rearing its head again as Medicare Advantage.

" When lawmakers added private plans to Medicare, they claimed that such plans would save money and provide better care. Proponents of these plans, now called "Medicare Advantage" plans, argued that because they would foster "coordination of care" and inject the "efficiency of the private market" into Medicare, these plans would result in savings for taxpayers and better health care for beneficiaries. The truth is, these private plans have never saved money. In fact, private Medicare Advantage plans now cost billions of dollars more than traditional Medicare - even though they may do little or no coordination of care.

In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), which pumped substantial new funding into Medicare's private plans and increased the windfall payments that these plans receive. While proving to be very lucrative for insurance companies, who have since increased their enrollment and thus their profits, this change has come at a high cost to taxpayers, and it has weakened the Medicare program as a whole. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare Advantage plans are paid an average of 12 percent more than traditional Medicare to provide the same care. MedPAC estimates that the resulting overpayments will add up to $54 billion over five years and $149 billion over 10 years.

The task of correcting these overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans has taken on extra urgency this year. One reason is that Congress, which must reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), is considering extending SCHIP coverage to all eligible but unenrolled children. This expansion of coverage would require about $50 billion in new funding. Although there are several options for coming up with this additional funding, reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans could deliver a substantial share of the funds necessary to expand SCHIP to eligible children. The funds saved by reducing these overpayments could also be used to improve Medicare coverage for low-income seniors by strengthening Medicare Savings Programs and the Part D low-income subsidy.

This report takes a closer look at how Medicare Advantage has evolved over the years and addresses the following issues:

Medicare Advantage plans are heavily subsidized, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, and these dollars come out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers;

Four out of five beneficiaries remain in traditional Medicare, but Medicare Advantage enrollment has grown substantially since 2003, especially in the least efficient plans; and

The "better benefits" promised to Medicare Advantage enrollees may not be as good as promised.

Conclusion

Medicare's private plans were introduced decades ago in the hope that they would control spending and increase the coordination of care. Today, Medicare Advantage plans are paid more than ever, and PFFS plans, which do not even attempt to coordinate care, have seen the overwhelming majority of growth in enrollment. This has resulted in billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on private coverage without any of the promised efficiency. Meanwhile, millions of seniors and people with disabilities who rely on traditional Medicare are paying extra money out of their own pockets to subsidize these plans. Reducing these costly overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans would strengthen Medicare, and it would generate substantial savings that could be used to improve programs that serve America's low-income seniors and fund health coverage for uninsured children. The choice before Congress is clear: a continued - and growing - windfall to insurance companies, or health coverage for low-income children and seniors?" end quote

And yes, Romney wants to return those fat profits to insurance companies.

Full report through the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Bill,

The three dots, if you had read the cite, stand for "the elite,". I didn't have room to put it in the title so, thus, the three dots.

As if Romney, the Koch brothers, Ryan, etc., etc., aren't part of the "elite" which Ryan is trying to denigrate.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Dockside, if you'd read my WHOLE post, you would've seen the smiley face. :-)


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Ggm, if that is what you gleaned then you better keep your day job. That could hardly be classified asresearch since you are simply parroting the R/R campaign which as we know is not known for their honest, integrity or their use of real facts.

Your claims and theirs are full of holes and devoid of accuracy. You shouldn't blindly believe what you are told especially by the Romney camp. I hope you aunt finds some advisors who are more adept at helping her.

Wise people don't believe liars. Smart people fact-check them. You should too.

Ryan's proposal guts programs for seniors, the disabled, children and families. Hardly beneficial for seniors like your aunt. Their plan detrimentally affects Medicare and Medicaid with almost $3 trillion in health care cuts and would take Medicare away from 50 million senior citizens. Their plan turns this into a privatized voucher system and caps how much the government spends on seniors regardless of their needs including subsidies for elder care and nursing homes. Their plan will allow for-profit private health insurance to decide what to cover and what not to and will increase costs to seniors. If you can't afford the supplemental insurance then too bad.

His plan for Medicaid is to make it a block grant program which will also detrimentally affect millions of seniors, children and the disabled.

Other parts of the R/R plan does away with restrictions preventing insurance companies to not cover those with pre-existing conditions, affects health care costs, eliminates the clause for prescription drug coverage for senior citizens amongst other things.

Perhaps you should look more into the Romney/Ryan plan as before you blindly endorse it.

BTW, their plan also turns those cuts into trillons of dollars worth of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations. Obama's plan has its flaws but unless you fall into either one of those categories their plan is hardly the panacea for your aunt or many senior Americans.

I won the race

Yes he did and that is the root of your problem. If Romney and Ryan continue to lie then he very well may win again.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

You couldn't have described Obama any more accurate.
Every attribute of what we already have in the WH.

You made sense on something for the first time :)

If you say so, CW, but you sure don't make any sense and that's really sad.

GGM, I suggest you take a course in reading comprehension and learning critical thinking skills. You are sorely lacking in both.

If you spend your time reading and investigating what the candidates claim they will and will not do, only on their websites, then you have learned nothing but their rhetoric and their claims. You have not learned facts. You have not done any research and you have not done any investigation.

I feel sorry for your aunt if she is relying on you for her information and understanding of the issues. If, what you have posted here is what you told her, then she is going to be one heck of a sorry senior, if the worst case happens and R&R are elected, and she got her advise and understanding of the issues from you.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Just doing their share to dupe people into voting for Romney. Doesn't matter who it is...

That said...Santorum accidently spoke the truth. Gotta love it.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

How humiliating for all of us. A candidate for president.

Why do I feel humiliated when lied to?


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

This man is Channeling George Washington. He cannot tell a lie.

I see this is a topic everyone agreed. Some so strongly support his assessment they felt compelled to add examples to strengthen his assessment of the base.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

It is amazing that there are people on this forum who are willing to defend stupidity. It shows how wedded some are to their candidate - at the expense of logic, intelligence and plain old common sense.
It also demonstrates the power of belief. Some posters are zealous about defending Santorum's statements, not because they believe them, but because they want to believe in something. The desire to believe obliterates their ability to think.
You cannot commit yourself, your heart, your soul, your brain to ANY one political party without compromising yourself.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

LOL


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Sep 16, 12 at 10:10

oooook....correction...

Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 2012
Being Stupid is Underrated!


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

You are mistating facts about Romney/Ryan's plan regarding seniors. I know exactly what it says because my aunt asked me to look up the information for her as she is a senior.

OK, so what is it? I'm waiting...


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Posted by maddie_athome (My Page) on
Fri, Jun 3, 11 at 12:38

Weiner can nail Breitfart's arse to the wall, and hopefully will do so. While he's at it, he should also take out "this kid is my hero" O'Keefe. Maybe we will finally get to know who ordered the invasion of Landrieu's office; and why Vitter bent over backwards to keep the new State Attorney from taking office.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Sun, Sep 16, 12 at 13:13

Posted by maddie_athome (My Page) on
Fri, Jun 3, 11 at 12:38

Weiner can nail Breitfart's arse to the wall, and hopefully will do so.

*

Glad I did not hold my breath for that great Snoopy investigating!

NOT.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

heri, God forbid I keep you waiting.

If you want to see where I obtained my information then read the Ryan plan.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ryan's plan


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Keep proving Santorum's point.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

Ryan's plan is where you got your info GGM?

OH, OH, OH. no wonder you think you know what you are talking about. That was his plan for the GOP to cut costs, reduce the spending etc., etc. etc.

I repeat, GGM, this is Ryan's plan, the GOP plan

Now, I hope you are listening loud and clear, I sure hope so for your Aunt's sake.

Romney, during the primary campaign, he endorsed and agreed with the Ryan plan, so he repeatedly stated.

Then, he won the nomination and is now the GOP candidate for President of the United States.

But there in lies the really serious problem. As Romney's head honcho campaign guy stated, it's an etch a sketch moment time.

Romney erased his prior support and now he's mouthing out rhetoric that doesn't agree with his "sidekick" Ryan.

So here's what else is important GGM

Romney has his own plan, his own economy fix, his own ideas and they don't mesh with his sidekick's Ryan's plan.

So I suggest you do some further investigation before you tell your Aunt who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Remember Romney would be the top guy in the white house, not Ryan. he's kinda there, just in case. You know, just in case he needs to fill in for the "top dog".
And of course Romney would have to get things though congress to actually matter.

So I don't think you have all your "ducks in a row", "all you i's dotted and your t's crossed".

Need some more work on this one,

Try taking a look at the AARP website and see what they have to say about each of the candidates. That's a good start.

then you could check out your facts that you claim to have found on Ryan's plan, with politico. that's another good source of the truth,

but you sure as heck don't have it by what you have read.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

maddie, feel better?

Little, you're right, I don't know what I'm talking about.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

OMG..Lyin' Ryan's plan???LOL...Why don't you go to a neutral source for your information and not the site of the lying twosome. Santorum IS right.


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

"smart people" = black people, brown people, yellow people, latino people, muslim people, gay people, female people, young people.

I rest my cranium.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Santorum: "We will never have ...smart people on our side"

GGM, All I'll say is God help your aunt if she's reling on your research. it's already clear that their plan will be increasing the eligibility age within the next 4 yrs. And if that doesn't impact 55+, I'll sell you a bridge...cheap.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here