I was surprised by Paul Ryan's speech

[Deerthug]

Here's some interesting info on Reagonomics and Clinton v. Bush:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Results

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/04/18/bush-vs-clinton-the-economic-verdict

hmmmmm........

[Doewhacker]

I wouldn't look to any politician to solve any math problems, you can't spend more than you make and expect things to get better yet every one of them does that.

[NYbuck50]

Im seeing alot of arguements on here, nickel and diming, over small issues.. This election ois about 1 thing.. THE ECONOMY.. one guy wants to revive it, the other wants 4 more years to continue to destroy it. These arent opinions they are facts

[virgil]

I would be interested in seeing that source. I see a lot contrary to that but I can't find a source that supports that.

Romney made the choice to abandon his earlier rejection of the human life amendment as he poured money and energy into winning the Ames caucus in Iowa, where Republican voters run strongly social conservative.

"I do support the Republican platform and I do support that big part of the Republican platform, and I am pro-life," Romney said during an August 6 Republican debate, when asked whether he affirmed the human life amendment, a key part of the 2004 Republican pro-life platform that was written by his pro-life advisor James Bopp,Jr..

The human life amendment intends to change the US Constitution by expanding 14th Amendment protections - such as due process and equal protection clauses - to include unborn children. Such an amendment would ban abortions nationwide and repeal the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

However the Associated Press reports that Romney later qualified his support for a human life amendment. According to the AP, Romney said his advisor Bopp had told him "there are a wide range of possible human life amendments" ranging from a total ban on abortion to an amendment that let states make the decision. On top of that, getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment, Bopp told him, "is just not realistic."

It is hard to pin him down on the subject because he's constantly changing or hiding his position on abortion, depending on who he's pandering to at the moment.

[virgil]

Im seeing alot of arguements on here, nickel and diming, over small issues.. This election ois about 1 thing.. THE ECONOMY.. one guy wants to revive it, the other wants 4 more years to continue to destroy it. These arent opinions they are facts

You need to check the definition of 'fact' and 'opinion'.

[Doewhacker]

Not that many will read this but,

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I have seen several quotes right from his mouth and going back to I think 93 where he says he Persoinally is against Abortion, feels it should not be legal and adds an exception for rape and health rish to the mother. That also seems to be the stance of the Republicans and conservatives. (granted not so with the extremeists)

[Deerthug]

I came across this article last year from a Pro-life website: Lifenews.com. Even the pro-lifers don't feel that Roe v. Wade will be overturned that easily. Here's just some excerpts from the article:

(Lifenews.com 10/6/11)

At a Labor Day forum sponsored by the “Tea Party” for the Republican candidates for president, one of the panelists, Professor Robert George, asked the five candidates who participated whether, in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), they would support Congressional legislation to declare the unborn child a “person,” as that word is used in § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1 provides, in part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The purported authority for such legislation is § 5 of the same Amendment which provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article [referring to the Fourteenth Amendment].” Three of the candidates–Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain–said that they would support such legislation; one–Rep. Ron Paul–said that the issue of abortion is one for the States, not the federal government, to decide; and one–Gov. Mitt Romney–indicated that he opposed such legislation because it would precipitate a constitutional crisis between Congress and the Supreme Court. (Emphasis added) At the same forum, the candidates were also asked whether they would support Congressional legislation removing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases challenging abortion regulations.

The Supreme Court’s abortion decisions can be overturned only by an overruling decision of the Court itself or by a federal constitutional amendment. Congress has no power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to define the unborn child as a “person” for purposes of § 1 of the Amendment, when the Court has held (in Roe) directly the opposite. Removal of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would not affect the binding force of those decisions and would actually prevent a differently constituted Court from overruling Roe and Casey. The proposals made to the Republican presidential candidates at their “Tea Party” forum do not offer a realistic means of overturning Roe v. Wade and do not deserve the support of the pro-life community.

Roe can be overturned only by a decision of the Court itself overruling Roe or by a federal constitutional amendment–neither a federal statute enacted under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment defining the word “person” as used in § 1 of the Amendment, nor a statute removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would have that effect.

P.S. Ooops left this part out:

First, removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would not affect the precedential force of the Court’s abortion decisions. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, both lower federal courts and state courts would continue to be bound by Roe, as modified by Casey. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that “This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” And under art. VI, “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution . . . .”

Second, ironically, removal of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would actually prevent a differently constituted Court from overruling Roe and Casey, and returning the issue of abortion to the States. That would not appear to be in the best interests of the pro-life movement or unborn children.

Third, removal of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would effectively leave lower federal courts and state supreme courts as the final arbiters of what is and what is not allowed with respect to the regulation of abortion. Under current law, a decision by either a federal court of appeals or a state reviewing court giving an overbroad reading to the abortion liberty may be reviewed and rectified by the Supreme Court. If the Court’s appellate jurisdiction were removed, however, there will be no mechanism for correction of such decisions. Moreover, there could be a profusion of conflicting decisions among federal courts, among state courts and between federal courts and state courts, as to what abortion regulations are permissible, with no possibility of Supreme Court review.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Deerthug

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not that many will read this but,

http://news.yahoo.co...-070905927.html

That wasn't a piece by David Chilian was it...lol

[Sogaard]

Abortion isnt going to change. Its a stance that gets votes, thats all. The gay rights stuff is most likely going to stay how it is too. Nice fear mongering though.

I honestly believe this isn't true. The next president has a likely chance of appointing two, if not three supreme court justices. Roe v Wade will be in serious trouble if Romney is president when Justices are retiring.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Sogaard

[growalot]

You guys are failing to see the true picture.......

The only choice you have is the lesser of two evils..

Kind of like posing this question:

Given a choice...would you rather be locked in a room with a Potential murderer...your the one that just killed a man?...I'd take my chances with the first wouldn't you?

[steve863]

Im seeing alot of arguements on here, nickel and diming, over small issues.. This election ois about 1 thing.. THE ECONOMY.. one guy wants to revive it, the other wants 4 more years to continue to destroy it. These arent opinions they are facts

Both sides have meddled with free enterprise way too much in recent years. Who started the bail outs? It was a republican Bush who bailed the banks and others out while he was in office, so it's only natural that once the democrats took over they would throw even more money into everything. I would let any private business fail, who can't make it on it's own. If we really are a free enterprise capitalistic nation, that is the way it should be left. The way I see it things won't be much better no matter who gets elected. You vote in a democrat and they throw Godzillions into every feel good social programs and issue which will bankrupt this nations future in the process. You vote in a republican and they will start a war in some fleabag nation where we spend Godzillions to fight it and then to rebuild it only to be then spit at by that nations people and which will no doubt also bankrupt this nations future in the process. Both parties are the same power hungry crap, they only have a bit different agendas. Both sides also want to take away rights. The rights one side may want to take away may not be important to us, but it is to others and it's the same with rights that the other side wants to take away. Many just stick with the side they agree with most and don't give much thought to how the other side feels or how it will be effected. That is the problem with this nation. Just too many narrowminded people who refuse to take a minute to actually listen to the other side or stop and think how their agenda will effect others. Without honest discussions, compromises, and tough decisions, businesses fail, friendships fail, marriages fail, and will no doubt lead to this nations downfall.

[Deerthug]

Well stated Steve

[nybuckboy]

Never saw so many snake oil salesmen in my life.

One comment stood out to me. He claims Obama let the GM factory close but the fact is the plant closed before he took office. I believe it closed in Oct or Nov of 2007 and he took office Jan 2008.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think production had stopped but I don't think the doors closed. I'd give it a b+ in the stretch the truth category.

[Meat First]

Exactly Steve!

[Meat First]

This two party system has polarized this country so much that neither party will work with one another anymore. I lean republican(for a new yorker at least) but for four years all that the republicans have been focused on is bad-mouthing the president. Its time to scrap political parties, the electoral college, conventions and lets take a real one man one vote computerized vote. Whoever wins the overall popular vote takes the election.

[ants]

I think that plant closed 2 months after B O took office.

[ants]

I think that plant closed 2 months after B O took office.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

This two party system has polarized this country so much that neither party will work with one another anymore. I lean republican(for a new yorker at least) but for four years all that the republicans have been focused on is bad-mouthing the president. Its time to scrap political parties, the electoral college, conventions and lets take a real one man one vote computerized vote. Whoever wins the overall popular vote takes the election.

Can we agree on citizen ...one vote?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think that plant closed 2 months after B O took office.

The Gm suv line ceased on Decamber 23 2008 the Isuzu line ran until 2009.

[Sogaard]

Wow...are we now in the Twilight Zone??

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

That is a FOXNEWS article. I had to check the link twice to make sure it wasn't fake.

[nybuckboy]

This two party system has polarized this country so much that neither party will work with one another anymore. I lean republican(for a new yorker at least) but for four years all that the republicans have been focused on is bad-mouthing the president. Its time to scrap political parties, the electoral college, conventions and lets take a real one man one vote computerized vote. Whoever wins the overall popular vote takes the election.

The way it should be... exactly my opinion as well.

[Early]

Meat First's approach gets my vote!

[steve863]

I've watched some of the convention, and honestly it has been nothing but an Obama bashfest. Very, very little in what Romney/Ryan actually plan to do and how they will go about doing it. I think simply bashing Obama and not coming up with convincing arguments on how the republican candidate can do better won't win them many votes with any voters that might still be on the fence. They have also done NOTHING to help bolster Romney's image with the American people. It's almost like the republicans are conceding that Romney has the personality of a tree stump, and pretty much stinks, but there only chance of winning is to throw as much mud at Obama as they possibly can. We will see how it all pans out for them.