More Obfuscation from the right

[telcoman]

They continue to refuse to answer the tough questions

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ontenders/

CHARLOTTE — Mitt Romney requested “several” years of tax returns from his potential running mates, a senior adviser to the candidate said Saturday, suggesting that those considered for the ticket may have been required to reveal more financial documents that the candidate himself.
In a briefing with reporters in Virginia Saturday, senior adviser Beth Myers, who was charged with headed the vice president selection process, declined to specify exactly how many years of tax returns were required, saying only that “several” were requested.
Several, by definition, implies more than two years.
Tim Pawlenty told George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” this morning that he gave “several” years of tax returns to Mitt Romney during the vice presidential vetting process. Pawlenty said he didn’t remember the exact number of years. He later said he gave Romney a “bunch” of tax returns.
When pressed about what “several” meant, Pawlenty said “We don’t get into the details of the vetting process.”
Romney, who has been under intense pressure to release more of his own tax returns by both Democrats and members of his own party, has so far released his 2010 returns and an estimate for his 2011 returns.
The campaign has said that the full 2011 returns will be released sometime before the November election.

The American people deserve to see the vetting process including the tax returns of anyone running for public office and they need to provide at least 5 years and perhaps more if there are questions.

No specifics on what earmarks they intend to cut. They only talk about tax cuts that benefit the wealthy

Romney wants to repeal healthcare on day one but no specifics on what he will replace it with.

What a bunch of BS from the right wing social engineers

Telcoman

[szh]

right wing social engineers

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I was under the impression that the phrase was reserved for the people who actually attempt to do social engineering all the time! Spefically the "government shall invade each and every person's life and tell you what to think, breathe, drive, pay out dole, etc." folks that the Democrats are!

Z

[telcoman]

I was under the impression that the phrase was reserved for the people who actually attempt to do social engineering all the time! Spefically the "government shall invade each and every person's life and tell you what to think, breathe, drive, pay out dole, etc." folks that the Democrats are!
Z

You mean like the government getting into your bedroom and telling you who you can marry, whether you can use contraception, force you to have a child even when a women is raped, and deny healthcare and family planning.

Is that what you are referring to?

[themadscientist]

He said "all the time." You gave just a few instances. It pales in comparison to the intrusiveness of the left, but it doesn't make it any less acceptable. Both ideas come from the same "do as I say not as I do, we know what's best for you" self-indulgent s***, though. I invite both ends of the political spectrum to get the f*** out of my life.

Obfuscation? You mean like hiding behind executive privilege when your schemes backfire?
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-f ... lege-claim

Watching the right and left wing faithful point at each other with one hand while trying to hide their other hand, the one with the blood on it, in their pocket, is humorous. The fact that enough Americans only watch the extended finger of accusation and not the hidden one is not humorous. It's why this partisan double standard bull s*** continues to work.

[stebo0728]

No one can deny that certain right wing social engineering exists. In a way, isn't government really just one big social engineer? The difference, and this is not a defense of the right, but the difference is, the right have precedent to stand on. Every large battle the right has engaged in have been in defense of the status quo. That doesn't mean that they are right necessarily. The status quo is not always defenseable. However, the left continually engages in unprecedented attempts of engineering that rock the status quo. Furthered entitlement, furthered redistribution of a wealth that has been presumed owned by society rather than the individual who created it, continued bloating of an already hugely overbloated public sector. The economy can withstand right wing social engineering, because largely, its revenue neutral, its not even revenue based at all. That doesn't belittle the issue, but it does put the difference into perspective.

EDIT - there was one time in history where the GOP challenged the status quo. Do you remember what it was? Hint: it involved human servitude.

[szh]

I was under the impression that the phrase was reserved for the people who actually attempt to do social engineering all the time! Spefically the "government shall invade each and every person's life and tell you what to think, breathe, drive, pay out dole, etc." folks that the Democrats are!
Z

You mean like the government getting into your bedroom and telling you who you can marry, whether you can use contraception, force you to have a child even when a women is raped, and deny healthcare and family planning.

Is that what you are referring to?

I agree with the other comments that both sides have tried to do social engineering.

However, the right wing efforts try to maintain many status quo items that this country was founded on, and/or developed in times that have changed over the years. So yes, some of these items are outmoded and do need change and yes, it is easy to pick on those.

OTOH, the majority (maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic with my "all the time") of left-wing driven social-engineering change efforts tend to be driven by a desire to do "well by everybody".

These usually end up driving an outcome of "mediocrity" or "average" outcomes - meant for the common good of all people.

But, "being average" is not what makes us successful. Particularly at the costs that come with that mediocrity.

Z

[themadscientist]

EDIT - there was one time in history where the GOP challenged the status quo. Do you remember what it was? Hint: it involved human servitude.

The Republican party was founded as a one-issue party. Knowing that would require seeking knowledge, though, not sitting in front of the TV waiting for the media to feed you what you "should know."