Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:i mean my point was just that it's bs to call "mitt promised he wouldn't!!" a 'fact-check.' the last line from the part i quoted is also a complete mischaracterization by romney (pres has NOT been saying romney will lower taxes by 5 million, just that romney has provided no details on how he'll acheive revenue neutrality while adding 5T to the deficit)

also the "kill big bird" item to get from 473.5B to 474B is just huge, thank you werthless.

I agree on the factcheck item, but there are many that dont understand what Romney is proposing. The nuance from Obama's response is being lost by Obama supporters.

The overreaction wrt Big Bird is exactly why Romney is sharing principles, not proposals. People agree on principle that we need a simplified tax code with fewer carveouts. Idiots on both sides of the aisle get hysterical if you actually mention a few that you'd leave out.

"Oh, you dont care about homeowners/kids/charities/religion/PBS! You monster!"

drsmooth wrote:which is more anachronistic: liberal arts education as a career move or affirmative action as part of any mechanism for choosing who gets to participate in it?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:well when you simultaneously pledge to spend lots more on the military, that response seems fair

A three-judge panel barred South Carolina's voter ID law from going into effect before the 2012 election on Wednesday, but said it could be implemented in elections beginning in 2013.

JFLNYC wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Hasn't Mitt said that his revenue neutrality is all assuming that trickle down economics rock and that the economy will start pumping the moment he's elected?

That is also my understanding.

td11 wrote:link

Romney said he looks for guidance to President Ronald Reagan

Monkeyboy wrote:So all these huge companies hoarding cash, something tells me they'll unleash it when Romney is sworn in, assuming he wins.

pacino wrote:What exactly is the point of revenue neutral

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus christ

jerseyhoya wrote:Jesus christ

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:which is more anachronistic: liberal arts education as a career move or affirmative action as part of any mechanism for choosing who gets to participate in it?

Liberal arts education has probably hurt America more (vis a vis other countries), but affirmative action has probably hurt individuals more.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:which is more anachronistic: liberal arts education as a career move or affirmative action as part of any mechanism for choosing who gets to participate in it?

Liberal arts education has probably hurt America more (vis a vis other countries), but affirmative action has probably hurt individuals more.

I don't personally know anyone tangibly harmed by affirmative action. Do you?