Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:15 pm  

(Rocky) Bobby's Girl wrote:

While in the US, my son stood on glass and cut open his foot.
In the ER, they gave him an anti-biotic shot, local anasthetic, and 4 stitches.
The bill for this was 1800USD. On top of that we had to buy dressings, and were given prescriptions for more painkiller and more anti-biotics. The drugs alone were over 50USD.
I don't know how anyone can afford to be ill or injured in the US.

Consider yoursef lucky Romney wasn't president he doesn't belive that people have an entitlement to heathcare (or food or housing for that matter).

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:23 pm  

JerryChicken wrote: a Prime Minister and Mayor of London (who technically should be supporting his flavour of politics) taking the mickey as often as they liked. To be fair the Republicans are far, far to the right of relatively moderate UK Conservatives like Cameron and Johnson. The 47% has been verified BTW - and as thought it includes a lot of potential Romney voters, especially the elderly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... s/?hpid=z1 The top "non tax payer" states are notably almost all reliable Red States too - there is a core of poor, white Republicans in the south:

JerryChicken wrote: a Prime Minister and Mayor of London (who technically should be supporting his flavour of politics) taking the mickey as often as they liked. To be fair the Republicans are far, far to the right of relatively moderate UK Conservatives like Cameron and Johnson. The 47% has been verified BTW - and as thought it includes a lot of potential Romney voters, especially the elderly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... s/?hpid=z1 The top "non tax payer" states are notably almost all reliable Red States too - there is a core of poor, white Republicans in the south:

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:25 pm  

And of course the non-tax payer figure only refers to federal income tax, a significant proportion of that 47% still do actually pay tax, but payroll tax not income tax.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:35 pm  

Him wrote:

And of course the non-tax payer figure only refers to federal income tax, a significant proportion of that 47% still do actually pay tax, but payroll tax not income tax.

True - it's an easy and lazy way to generate base support to give the impression that nearly half the nation are freeloaders.

If you read the comments in their own right some lines are actually quite astonishing:

"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

"My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

One can make allowances for him speaking off the cuff, so unscripted and to a degree perhaps not the fully formed thoughts he may truly believe (the "mis-spoke" defence beloved in American politics). But, regardless, anyone who aims to be the American head of state has to at least try and attempt - or pretend - that they will represent and worry about the entire nation. This quote alone should sink him, although there remains some way to go.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:44 pm  

...who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them.

Its worth repeating until the cows come home, on either side of the Atlantic, once you'vre removed the requirement of any government to care for its population then you have the only obvious question left of "What the hell are they there for ?"

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:34 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its worth repeating until the cows come home, on either side of the Atlantic, once you'vre removed the requirement of any government to care for its population then you have the only obvious question left of "What the hell are they there for ?"

Well, someone has to stick up for Israel and make war overseas.

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:40 pm  

Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.'

Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.'

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:50 pm  

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:53 pm  

Mintball wrote: Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.' I know it's popular to describe Americans as thick, but when half the country backs feckwitts like Romney it's hard to disagree!

Mintball wrote: Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.' I know it's popular to describe Americans as thick, but when half the country backs feckwitts like Romney it's hard to disagree!

Re: OBAMA v ROMNEY : Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:06 pm  

Mintball wrote: Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.' Please tell me that isn't true. Please

Mintball wrote: Romney: 'I don't know why you can't roll down the windows in a plane.' Please tell me that isn't true. Please