Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Reacting to boos, Romney goes off-script
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:13 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: Mitt Romney was met with a round of boos Wednesday during his speech at the NAACP convention in Houston, after he voiced his goal to repeal "Obamacare." "I'm going to eliminate every non-essential expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare, and I'm going to work to reform and save," he said, before being interrupted by the unhappy crowd. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee paused for 15 seconds, as he looked out over the crowd hissing and jeering. Instead of moving on to his next point, Romney went off-script to back up his claim. Romney mentioned, as the boos began to fade, a survey of 1,500 members of the Chamber of Commerce, in which three-quarters said President Barack Obama's health care plan made them "less likely to hire people." "So I say again," Romney continued. "If our priority is jobs, and that's my priority, that's something I'd change and I'd replace with something that provides to people something they need in health care, which is lower costs, good quality, a capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions and I'll put that in place." He then went on to make his next point, as listed in his prepared remarks. The candidate had a few more boos from those who took issue with some of his positions. However, Romney also received some applause lines, as well as a few bursts of organ music during the remainder of his speech. After the event, campaign adviser Tara Wall described Romney's reception as favorable, saying, "I'll take three boos out of thunderous applause over and over again." Pressed by reporters if she really considered the applause "thunderous," Wall quickly walked back her remark. "Okay, applause in general. I think there was a lot more, as I've said a few times, a lot more applause than there were boos. I will take the fact that there was acceptance overall with his speech," she said. But then Chairman Roslyn Brock criticized Romney's policies, "This morning Gov. Romney laid out his policy agenda for this nation. Unfortunately, much of his agenda is at odds with what the NAACP stands for - whether the issue is equal access to affordable health care, reforming our education system or the path forward on marriage equality. We appreciate that he was courageous and took the opportunity to speak with us directly." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/11/reacting-to-boos-romney-goes-off-script/
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:21 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:I'd replace with something that provides to people something they need in health care, which is lower costs, good quality, a capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions and I'll put that in place."
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:35 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote:I'd replace with something that provides to people something they need in health care, which is lower costs, good quality, a capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions and I'll put that in place." Hello, I thought these were the precise goals of the Obama health care program? --Anthony
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:48 AM
Quote: In the new survey, 47 percent support the law and 47 percent oppose it. In April, 39 percent backed it and 53 percent opposed it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-mitt-romney-deadlocked-in-race-poll-finds/2012/07/09/gJQAaJwdZW_story.html
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Yes, Anthony, they are. But "something"--WHAT?? Romney created the twin to the AFA in his state, but now he hates the very thing he put in place?? Obama has passed a LAW to do so, just like Romney's...Romney hasn't even explained what he'd do differently. Until he does, how can we know what the hell HE's proposing? Even some Republicans have said outright that they'd want to keep parts of the Affordable Care Act; THEY originated the mandate and numerous other aspects of the ACA; so what are they/Romney proposing to deal with those issues DIFFERENTLY?!
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:28 AM
Quote:IN PROGRESS: On January 20, 2011, the House passed H. Res. 9, a resolution instructing House committees to develop legislation replacing the job-killing health care law. Committees are currently doing their work to hold hearings and examine solutions to lower costs, increase access to quality care, and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship. Enact Medical Liability Reform Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as "defensive medicine." We will enact common-sense medical liability reforms to lower costs, rein in junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine. Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines Americans residing in a state with expensive health insurance plans are locked into those plans and do not currently have an opportunity to choose a lower cost option that best meets their needs. We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live. Expand Health Savings Accounts Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide costeffective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. We will improve HSAs by making it easier for patients with high-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We will repeal the new health care law, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine. Ensure Access for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Permanently Prohibit Taxpayer Funding of Abortion We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion. This prohibition would go further and enact into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment as well as ban other instances of federal subsidies for abortion services. We will also enact into law conscience protections for health care providers, including doctors, nurses, and hospitals. http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare progress" doesn't tell us anything. From what I've read:Quote:While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not include comprehensive medical liability reforms, medical liability reform legislation has passed in the House of Representatives 12 times since 1995 – most recently in March of this year.One source of several: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-liability-reform-group-reacts-to-supreme-court-decision-on-affordable-care-act-160707245.html medical liability reforms aren't in the AFA? I'm almost positive selling insurance across state lines isn't in the AFA. From what I've read, it's not a good idea:Quote:Currently, according to Kaiser Health News, health insurance companies can sell plans only in states where they are licensed to do business. Many large insurers get licenses in a variety of states. Each state has its own laws regarding benefits and consumer protections -- some states require that insurance companies provide coverage for autism, for example, while others do not. By getting licensed, health insurance companies ensure that they are in compliance with a state's unique, and often complex, laws. Enabling health insurance companies to sell across state lines means that insurers would have to comply only with the regulations of the state in which they are based -- and not with the regulations of the states where its customers live, according to the Urban Institute. A central point of contention over selling health insurance across state lines is whether state standards and regulations would be preserved. When determined by the insurance company's state of residency, it's hard to maintain minimal insurance standards. According to the Urban Institute, these standards would be "undermined" by cross-state health insurance. But conservative analysts claim that undermining some of these regulations isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, points to over-regulation as a cause of the decline of insurance markets around the country. In a July 2006 Heritage Foundation article, Dr. Robert Moffit cites the "highly regulated" nature of the Maryland insurance market as the reason many insurers left the business, reducing competition.One source: http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/selling-insurance-across-state-lines other words, "deregulate", something Republicans love. It seems to me this would work out that insurance companies would choose to "headquarter" in a state with as few regulations as possible, and in my opinion, we've seen how THAT works. As to health savings accounts:Quote:Health savings accounts (HSAs) help individuals manage their health care expenses. Instead of the employer contributing money to a health insurance plan, you can put your pretax income into an investment account. This non-taxed money can then be used to pay off the costs of a deductible, as well as for doctor's visits and any other medical expenses. HSAs tend to benefit people who make good salaries, and people who could take advantage of them sometimes do not. An HSA is only as effective as the number of people who use these accounts, because insurance works by pooling the risk of a number of people to reduce costs. A high-deductible health plan that would qualify an individual for an HSA would need to have a deductible ranging between $1,150 and $5,800, according to the Internal Revenue Service. You would need to put at least that amount of your gross income into the HSA on an annual basis to be eligible for benefits in your health insurance plan. Someone who makes $30,000 per year before taxes would thus need to pay 3.8 to nearly 20 percent to satisfy the deductible, before other health care expenses. To be eligible for an HSA, individuals have to sign up for a high-deductible health plan and will generally pay more than $1,000 before the insurer covers health expenses. Patients who need expensive medical procedures may find there is a smaller window between the deductible amount and the benefits paid by the insurance company. Affluent Americans tend to benefit most from an HSA because it allows them to put money into accounts that would otherwise be taxed at a high rate because of their income level. Since HSAs offer a significant tax benefit, the people who take advantage of them are likely to make more than $100,000, according to a Government Accountability Office report, and not those who are more likely to be uninsured. http://www.soyouwanna.com/list-downfalls-health-savings-accounts-34485.htmlBeyond that, yes, they share the pre-existing-conditions aspect, and the no-abortion thing is just more of the usual. So it looks to me like mostly the predictable Republican points: deregulate, benefit the wealthy, and anti-abortion. I don't see it helping the uninsured or lowering costs particularly. I believe the AHA does something to limit tort reform, and while I certainly agree it needs to be dealt with, patients also need to be protected in some way from malpractice. So aside from that, how are they "identical", which is what you're suggesting? And if the only difference WAS that Romney's "plan" is Republican, why go to so much trouble to repeal the AFA? We both know the answer (POLITICS), but that doesn't make it sensible...or honest.
Quote:While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not include comprehensive medical liability reforms, medical liability reform legislation has passed in the House of Representatives 12 times since 1995 – most recently in March of this year.One source of several: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-liability-reform-group-reacts-to-supreme-court-decision-on-affordable-care-act-160707245.html medical liability reforms aren't in the AFA? I'm almost positive selling insurance across state lines isn't in the AFA. From what I've read, it's not a good idea:Quote:Currently, according to Kaiser Health News, health insurance companies can sell plans only in states where they are licensed to do business. Many large insurers get licenses in a variety of states. Each state has its own laws regarding benefits and consumer protections -- some states require that insurance companies provide coverage for autism, for example, while others do not. By getting licensed, health insurance companies ensure that they are in compliance with a state's unique, and often complex, laws. Enabling health insurance companies to sell across state lines means that insurers would have to comply only with the regulations of the state in which they are based -- and not with the regulations of the states where its customers live, according to the Urban Institute. A central point of contention over selling health insurance across state lines is whether state standards and regulations would be preserved. When determined by the insurance company's state of residency, it's hard to maintain minimal insurance standards. According to the Urban Institute, these standards would be "undermined" by cross-state health insurance. But conservative analysts claim that undermining some of these regulations isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, points to over-regulation as a cause of the decline of insurance markets around the country. In a July 2006 Heritage Foundation article, Dr. Robert Moffit cites the "highly regulated" nature of the Maryland insurance market as the reason many insurers left the business, reducing competition.One source: http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/selling-insurance-across-state-lines other words, "deregulate", something Republicans love. It seems to me this would work out that insurance companies would choose to "headquarter" in a state with as few regulations as possible, and in my opinion, we've seen how THAT works. As to health savings accounts:Quote:Health savings accounts (HSAs) help individuals manage their health care expenses. Instead of the employer contributing money to a health insurance plan, you can put your pretax income into an investment account. This non-taxed money can then be used to pay off the costs of a deductible, as well as for doctor's visits and any other medical expenses. HSAs tend to benefit people who make good salaries, and people who could take advantage of them sometimes do not. An HSA is only as effective as the number of people who use these accounts, because insurance works by pooling the risk of a number of people to reduce costs. A high-deductible health plan that would qualify an individual for an HSA would need to have a deductible ranging between $1,150 and $5,800, according to the Internal Revenue Service. You would need to put at least that amount of your gross income into the HSA on an annual basis to be eligible for benefits in your health insurance plan. Someone who makes $30,000 per year before taxes would thus need to pay 3.8 to nearly 20 percent to satisfy the deductible, before other health care expenses. To be eligible for an HSA, individuals have to sign up for a high-deductible health plan and will generally pay more than $1,000 before the insurer covers health expenses. Patients who need expensive medical procedures may find there is a smaller window between the deductible amount and the benefits paid by the insurance company. Affluent Americans tend to benefit most from an HSA because it allows them to put money into accounts that would otherwise be taxed at a high rate because of their income level. Since HSAs offer a significant tax benefit, the people who take advantage of them are likely to make more than $100,000, according to a Government Accountability Office report, and not those who are more likely to be uninsured. http://www.soyouwanna.com/list-downfalls-health-savings-accounts-34485.htmlBeyond that, yes, they share the pre-existing-conditions aspect, and the no-abortion thing is just more of the usual. So it looks to me like mostly the predictable Republican points: deregulate, benefit the wealthy, and anti-abortion. I don't see it helping the uninsured or lowering costs particularly. I believe the AHA does something to limit tort reform, and while I certainly agree it needs to be dealt with, patients also need to be protected in some way from malpractice. So aside from that, how are they "identical", which is what you're suggesting? And if the only difference WAS that Romney's "plan" is Republican, why go to so much trouble to repeal the AFA? We both know the answer (POLITICS), but that doesn't make it sensible...or honest.
Quote:Currently, according to Kaiser Health News, health insurance companies can sell plans only in states where they are licensed to do business. Many large insurers get licenses in a variety of states. Each state has its own laws regarding benefits and consumer protections -- some states require that insurance companies provide coverage for autism, for example, while others do not. By getting licensed, health insurance companies ensure that they are in compliance with a state's unique, and often complex, laws. Enabling health insurance companies to sell across state lines means that insurers would have to comply only with the regulations of the state in which they are based -- and not with the regulations of the states where its customers live, according to the Urban Institute. A central point of contention over selling health insurance across state lines is whether state standards and regulations would be preserved. When determined by the insurance company's state of residency, it's hard to maintain minimal insurance standards. According to the Urban Institute, these standards would be "undermined" by cross-state health insurance. But conservative analysts claim that undermining some of these regulations isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, points to over-regulation as a cause of the decline of insurance markets around the country. In a July 2006 Heritage Foundation article, Dr. Robert Moffit cites the "highly regulated" nature of the Maryland insurance market as the reason many insurers left the business, reducing competition.One source: http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/selling-insurance-across-state-lines other words, "deregulate", something Republicans love. It seems to me this would work out that insurance companies would choose to "headquarter" in a state with as few regulations as possible, and in my opinion, we've seen how THAT works. As to health savings accounts:Quote:Health savings accounts (HSAs) help individuals manage their health care expenses. Instead of the employer contributing money to a health insurance plan, you can put your pretax income into an investment account. This non-taxed money can then be used to pay off the costs of a deductible, as well as for doctor's visits and any other medical expenses. HSAs tend to benefit people who make good salaries, and people who could take advantage of them sometimes do not. An HSA is only as effective as the number of people who use these accounts, because insurance works by pooling the risk of a number of people to reduce costs. A high-deductible health plan that would qualify an individual for an HSA would need to have a deductible ranging between $1,150 and $5,800, according to the Internal Revenue Service. You would need to put at least that amount of your gross income into the HSA on an annual basis to be eligible for benefits in your health insurance plan. Someone who makes $30,000 per year before taxes would thus need to pay 3.8 to nearly 20 percent to satisfy the deductible, before other health care expenses. To be eligible for an HSA, individuals have to sign up for a high-deductible health plan and will generally pay more than $1,000 before the insurer covers health expenses. Patients who need expensive medical procedures may find there is a smaller window between the deductible amount and the benefits paid by the insurance company. Affluent Americans tend to benefit most from an HSA because it allows them to put money into accounts that would otherwise be taxed at a high rate because of their income level. Since HSAs offer a significant tax benefit, the people who take advantage of them are likely to make more than $100,000, according to a Government Accountability Office report, and not those who are more likely to be uninsured. http://www.soyouwanna.com/list-downfalls-health-savings-accounts-34485.htmlBeyond that, yes, they share the pre-existing-conditions aspect, and the no-abortion thing is just more of the usual. So it looks to me like mostly the predictable Republican points: deregulate, benefit the wealthy, and anti-abortion. I don't see it helping the uninsured or lowering costs particularly. I believe the AHA does something to limit tort reform, and while I certainly agree it needs to be dealt with, patients also need to be protected in some way from malpractice. So aside from that, how are they "identical", which is what you're suggesting? And if the only difference WAS that Romney's "plan" is Republican, why go to so much trouble to repeal the AFA? We both know the answer (POLITICS), but that doesn't make it sensible...or honest.
Quote:Health savings accounts (HSAs) help individuals manage their health care expenses. Instead of the employer contributing money to a health insurance plan, you can put your pretax income into an investment account. This non-taxed money can then be used to pay off the costs of a deductible, as well as for doctor's visits and any other medical expenses. HSAs tend to benefit people who make good salaries, and people who could take advantage of them sometimes do not. An HSA is only as effective as the number of people who use these accounts, because insurance works by pooling the risk of a number of people to reduce costs. A high-deductible health plan that would qualify an individual for an HSA would need to have a deductible ranging between $1,150 and $5,800, according to the Internal Revenue Service. You would need to put at least that amount of your gross income into the HSA on an annual basis to be eligible for benefits in your health insurance plan. Someone who makes $30,000 per year before taxes would thus need to pay 3.8 to nearly 20 percent to satisfy the deductible, before other health care expenses. To be eligible for an HSA, individuals have to sign up for a high-deductible health plan and will generally pay more than $1,000 before the insurer covers health expenses. Patients who need expensive medical procedures may find there is a smaller window between the deductible amount and the benefits paid by the insurance company. Affluent Americans tend to benefit most from an HSA because it allows them to put money into accounts that would otherwise be taxed at a high rate because of their income level. Since HSAs offer a significant tax benefit, the people who take advantage of them are likely to make more than $100,000, according to a Government Accountability Office report, and not those who are more likely to be uninsured. http://www.soyouwanna.com/list-downfalls-health-savings-accounts-34485.html
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: From what I can tell so far, there will be one primary difference from the Democratic backed 'Obamacare' program. Romney's program is Republican. --Anthony
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:31 PM
WHOZIT
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:40 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: From what I can tell so far, there will be one primary difference from the Democratic backed 'Obamacare' program. Romney's program is Republican. --Anthony No, Obama's plan is unbelievably expensive and ( sorry Roberts ) unconstitutional. Mitt's plan ? Is for one state, not the entire nation. One state, a BLUE, left wing Massachusetts state, not the entire nation.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:42 PM
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:59 PM
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:00 PM
YINYANG
You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Actually, I'm kinda surprised he went to address them at all. He knows the gap between himself and Obama in the black community, and that nothing he says will change that. Interesting.
Quote:O’Reilly commented, “There’s no question Mitt Romney’s a brave guy for going to the NAACP convention. He knew he would not be received well there. But he also knows that if he wins the election he’ll be president to all Americans, so his appearance is a positive in that regard.” (source: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/11/bill-oreilly-was-it-smart-for-mitt-romney-to-speak-at-the-naacp-convention/)
Quote:Everyone expected it, no? When you’re addressing a group that’s supporting the other guy to the tune of 95 percent, bet on there being a few awkward moments. I doubt he’ll win any votes for showing up but it’s worth his while to do it anyway for two reasons. One: It’s a gesture of outreach. The left will, as always, demagogue him more viciously on race the closer we get to election day (especially if O starts to fall behind); this is Romney’s way of trying to show good faith and inoculate himself against the charge. Liberals won’t care but some swing voters might. Two: It’s catnip for the media. An event that’s guaranteed to end with a black audience criticizing the Republican nominee for president is as good as it gets if you’re among the 98 percent or whatever of reporters who are liberal. BuzzFeed’s clearly enjoying it bunches, and Think Progress is being as Think Progress-y as you’d expect. But look at it this way: How often is a Romney speech the big news story of the day? This is a windfall of earned media for his stump speech at a moment when The One has nothing much going on to distract from it. Romney knows how unpopular ObamaCare is with most of the public and he knows that the media would go nuts if he got booed by the NAACP for criticizing it, and so he did it. And now every newscast in the country tonight will have footage of him talking about how bad the boondoggler-in-chief’s big health-care program is. The press gets what it wants and Romney gets what he wants. Great. (source: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/11/romney-i-expected-to-be-booed-by-the-naacp-when-i-mentioned-obamacare/)
Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:16 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: It's untrue that Americans don't want the AFA. Check out the July 1st poll: Notice that 38% want to either keep it as is or EXPAND it, while only 31% want to repeal...and 21% want to keep some parts of the AFA. So the largest percentage by far want to keep parts or all of the AFA or else EXPAND it.
Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:57 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Or you could also say that 52% of Americans want the AFA REPEALED in whole or part. All just spin.
Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:40 AM
Quote:The line got the opposite reaction from the right, some of whom has questioned Romney's conservative convictions. "We can see a smile break out on Romney's face, and for good reason. This gives him all sorts of instant credibility on the Right and in the middle," Ed Morrissey wrote on the conservative blog Hot Air. "The middle will be pleased to see that Romney went to the convention at all, in the face of overt hostility, plus the NAACP audience comes across as a bit immature. "The Right has doubted Romney's commitment to repealing ObamaCare at times, but this shows that Romney is willing to repeat that pledge anywhere, even when it's guaranteed to turn the audience against him." http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/politics/romney-naacp/index.html Quote: the country has every right to be roundly disappointed in the NAACP for hypocritically flouting its own pledge on Wednesday, when it invited Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to address its convention in Houston – and then very uncivilly booed him. http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/12/the-naacp-boos-romney-a-double-standard-and-a-breach-of-civility/don't think it's necessarily true that it gives him much "credibility" with the middle, OR the right; I don't think many who have already decided not to vote for Romney will have their minds changed by just this, so if it actually was a ploy, it's a fairly small one in my estimation. I'm not sure there are many more undecided anywhere than there are African Americans who were equally offended who might have voted for him otherwise. I guess when it comes to that, essentially "who knows?" and "who cares?" if it was some kind of gamesmanship.
Quote: the country has every right to be roundly disappointed in the NAACP for hypocritically flouting its own pledge on Wednesday, when it invited Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to address its convention in Houston – and then very uncivilly booed him. http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/12/the-naacp-boos-romney-a-double-standard-and-a-breach-of-civility/
Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:29 AM
Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:49 AM
HERO
Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:16 PM
Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Actually, I'm kinda surprised he went to address them at all. He knows the gap between himself and Obama in the black community, and that nothing he says will change that. Interesting. Its a shame...I think this was the year that Republicans had a real chance of picking up the NAACP endorsement and the support of a majority of black voters...no wait, lets face it, Sarah Palin has more chance of being elected head of the Taliban then the black community doing anything other then voting the Democratic ticket. Democrats could stage a Klan rally in the middle of the NAACP convention and still expect about 80% of the vote with numerous esteemed leaders applauding the courage and wonderful cross burning by saying 'its ok when WE do it'. Here's the breakdown of NAACP support: Starting at 100%. Romney is Republican...support drops to 20%. Romeny is white...support drops to 15%. Obama is black...support drops to 8%. You'll notice that aside from race and party THERE ARE NO BLACK ISSUES. Sure, they like to pretend there are...but its a lie they tell themselves to make it easier to live with the fact that they have chained themselves to a political machine that has done little or nothing for them in the past fifty year except impoverish their people and destroy their culture. They had a brief window and much was accomplished, since then...nothing. H Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:21 PM
MAL4PREZ
Friday, July 13, 2012 3:22 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Friday, July 13, 2012 4:26 AM
Quote:Many of Romney’s claims were debunked by Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy and the Director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP, Hilary Shelton who said that the only African Americans Romney met with after his speech were those that he brought with him. Mr. Shelton explained that Mitt Romney flew in his own African-American supporters who were not affiliated with the NAACP, in order to have some people in the crowd cheering for him. http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romney-rig-naacp-crowd-flying-african-americans.html who Shelton is (Director of Washington Bureau of NAACP), I tend to believe him. There's also the fact that this isn't the first time:Quote:Another BYU student, who asked not to be named, said he traveled to South Carolina on a bus with several other Mormons and non-Mormons from Virginia, home to the small Mormon liberal arts school, Southern Virginia University. He said as far as he knew, the Romney campaign would be reimbursing the cost of the charter bus, and that volunteer coordinators suggested the out-of-towners show up at Tommy's. " http://penigma.blogspot.com/So who knows? I'm sure it will never be known.
Quote:Another BYU student, who asked not to be named, said he traveled to South Carolina on a bus with several other Mormons and non-Mormons from Virginia, home to the small Mormon liberal arts school, Southern Virginia University. He said as far as he knew, the Romney campaign would be reimbursing the cost of the charter bus, and that volunteer coordinators suggested the out-of-towners show up at Tommy's. " http://penigma.blogspot.com/
Friday, July 13, 2012 5:09 AM
Friday, July 13, 2012 5:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: I'm sure that both sides seed their crowds. This one interests me though, given all the reaction to it as well as the narrative Romney will try to pull off it for the rest of his campaign. He wants kudos for addressing and meeting with NAACP leaders, it'd be nice if he actually did. This story is dying though. The financial news is much bigger.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL