danivon wrote:]As far as I'm aware, Romney has promised to not enforce the whole of the ACA from day one. I assume on that basis you will refuse to vote for someone who is campaigning on a pledge to undo his oath? Or perhaps you can see a way in which he can not enforce the ACA and it not actually be a breach.

Easy-peasy.

Issue a waiver to all 50 States.

As for repeal, it won't be filibustered. If the Democrats go down that road, reconciliation is an option so is simply starving it of funding.

Ultimately, if President Obama loses and Democrats lose control of the Senate, I think the surviving Democrats would be morons to believe they have a mandate to preserve Obamacare.

Doctor Fate wrote:Man, every time I think they have to stop, they don't. The latest: an ad in which "Republican women" talk about how far the GOP has moved to the right. They note they are "small government" fans and so have no choice . . . but to vote for Obama.

One problem: they're not Republicans.

The one exposed here is obviously very left-wing. Furthermore, the writer here promises:

UPDATE: OK, I’ve broken through on this via Facebook. More of the women are fake “Republicans.” Will do update after lunch!

The Obama campaign looks increasingly desperate.

I take it you are equally appalled by the Bettina Inclan ad, which makes out that she's a disillusioned Obama voter and not (as she actually is) a member of tha RNC staff who has been associated with the Republicans for several years.

I've been busy for the last few days, so perhaps I missed your condemnation of it.

danivon wrote:I take it you are equally appalled by the Bettina Inclan ad, which makes out that she's a disillusioned Obama voter and not (as she actually is) a member of tha RNC staff who has been associated with the Republicans for several years.

I've been busy for the last few days, so perhaps I missed your condemnation of it.

Post a link. If she looks in the camera and says she's a Democrat, I will condemn it. It's my understanding that she's "acting," but I've not watched it. In the ad I cited, there is no "drama," just distortion.

Maybe they are just better actors? A good actor will be convincing in their performance, after all. Rationalisation is fun, huh?

I'm not bothered by either. I think it's kind of taken as read that people who appear in an ad for a political party are not 'normal' voters. But I'm not suprised that the Democrat one makes you all riled up, while the Republican one sails serenely past. I bet (indeed, I don't, for I know already) that partisan Democrat hacks have been wailing and gnashing about it.

Meh.

danivon wrote:Maybe they are just better actors? A good actor will be convincing in their performance, after all. Rationalisation is fun, huh?

You're back to your same old dishonesty. I'm shocked.

I asked for a link because I hadn't seen it. Instead, you accuse me of rationalization.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoekOZTu ... r_embedded

Now, that in now way resembles the one I posted about. She does not misrepresent herself.

I'm not bothered by either. I think it's kind of taken as read that people who appear in an ad for a political party are not 'normal' voters. But I'm not suprised that the Democrat one makes you all riled up, while the Republican one sails serenely past. I bet (indeed, I don't, for I know already) that partisan Democrat hacks have been wailing and gnashing about it.

Meh.

Have a double shot of honesty and call me tomorrow.