Thread: We must find a way to make peace between two groups....

Originally Posted by googler

Barakula. Lol. Had to explain to my friends what I was laughing at. Thanks. I think I'll use that one.

Anyways. Most of the people in my school would have turned their back on Obama had Ron Paul been given the chance to run against him. It is clear they are disappointed in his stance on drugs and the wars overseas which are costing us billions of tax dollars and blood. We on the other hand are tired of his entire presidency and so we have at least one thing in common.

But for the love of god, we cannot go from a socialist president to one that will run this country like a "business". He'll drive it into the ground all in the name of appeasing our foreign creditors in China and Saudi Arabia. We'd go from one extreme to the other and that is not what this country needs. And last time I checked, many businesses hire cheap illegal/legal labor all in the name of cutting costs because that's what running a business is all about. This ends up screwing the American worker. Wouldn't be hard to believe Romney has this in his head somewhere and hence his terrible position on illegal immigration.

Haven't you read anything I've posted to this thread? Where do you get off saying Romney is terrible on illegal immigration? He may not be everything your or I want him to be on the issue but he's far from terrible! I noticed you support gay marriage. Perhaps, deep down, that's why you find Romney so distasteful ...... could it be?

Originally Posted by MW

Haven't you read anything I've posted to this thread? Where do you get off saying Romney is terrible on illegal immigration? He may not be everything your or I want him to be on the issue but he's far from terrible! I noticed you support gay marriage. Perhaps, deep down, that's why you find Romney so distasteful ...... could it be?

I have, have you? He is terrible on illegal immigration because he cannot clearly state his stance on the Arizona law decision nor what he'd do about Obama's policy change to the American people. The fact that he is being vague on illegal aliens and the military is potentially traitorous. Perhaps he fears alienating the illegal alien bloc? Either he is a complete idiot or the people running his campaign are. At this point I can't tell. As others have stated, at least with Obama we know he stands on the wrong side, Romney looks to me like he considers illegal immigration a low priority. Perhaps it's understandable since he's never had to deal with it personally, so what does he care? If he wasn't running for office, he'd have ignored the fact that the landscaping company he contracted employed illegals. Those at the top don't care all the while we in the middle get screwed over.

Perhaps you noticed I support gay marriage because, I've said a couple times before, that is perhaps the one and only issue Obama and I can agree on (as much as I hate to say it), and even then he's clearly using the issue for political gain to energize his base. If he were to end the wars overseas that would another agreement, but sadly neither of these two persons are bright enough to understand our troops would be better used protecting our borders at home then another country's.

Originally Posted by googler

I have, have you? He is terrible on illegal immigration because he cannot clearly state his stance on the Arizona law decision nor what he'd do about Obama's policy change to the American people. The fact that he is being vague on illegal aliens and the military is potentially traitorous. Perhaps he fears alienating the illegal alien bloc? Either he is a complete idiot or the people running his campaign are. At this point I can't tell. As others have stated, at least with Obama we know he stands on the wrong side, Romney looks to me like he considers illegal immigration a low priority. Perhaps it's understandable since he's never had to deal with it personally, so what does he care? If he wasn't running for office, he'd have ignored the fact that the landscaping company he contracted employed illegals. Those at the top don't care all the while we in the middle get screwed over.

Perhaps you noticed I support gay marriage because, I've said a couple times before, that is perhaps the one and only issue Obama and I can agree on (as much as I hate to say it), and even then he's clearly using the issue for political gain to energize his base. If he were to end the wars overseas that would another agreement, but sadly neither of these two persons are bright enough to understand our troops would be better used protecting our borders at home then another country's.

In my over 50 years of life I've been around the block a time or two and consider myself fairly well seasoned where politics are concerned. How about you, have you been voting for over 36 years? If so, you should have some idea of how the game is played by now. While it's important to win over your main voting block, in this case Republican voters, it's also important to appeal to the Independent voters. With that said, a very important rule in politics is to avoid antagonizing your enemy as much as possible because it will only serve to force them to the polls against you. Every Obama voter that stays home on election day is a victory for Romney. Many former Obama voters, mostly Independents, have already had enough of Obama and will switch their vote this time around. As for hardcore liberal voters ........ well, there isn't much you can do with them except hope some of them have lost interest in Obama and decide to stay home on election day. Now there is some real money to be made on the black voting block this time around. I'm feeling that the newness, and Obama's failure to help their situation, will keep many of them home this year. Additionally, many in that voting block are very disturbed at Obama's support of gay marriage and that too will keep many of them home because they will not vote Republican (generalizing). Remember, the black voting block turned out overwhelmingly in favor of Obama last time around. This year I'm thinking that wont be the case (I'm hopeful many will stay home).


You don't antagonize a dog because he will bite you, nor do you reveal your hand in the middle of a game. I honestly don't think Romney's strategy is a bad one. I say keep the opposition guessing just long enough to get in the White House and than reveal your hand on immigration. All the signs of where Romney stands on the issue are there for anyone that cares to look. Remember, strategy is all about gaining a position of advantage over your adversary. If being vague on certain details helps to keep the enemy calm and docile ....... so be it. For some reason you seem to think his vagueness is an attempt at keeping something from us when in reality it is probably to keep his plans from the opposition ...... smart play.

Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The State Model for the Affordable Care Act Is Working and Broadly Popular



Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Timothy Murphy in 2006 after signing into law a landmark bill designed to guarantee virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance

Download this brief (pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._myth_fact.pdf

Read in your web browser on Scribd
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law one year ago. It is modeled in large part on the landmark Massachusetts health reform law enacted four years earlier in 2006. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act often attack it by distorting the facts about the Massachusetts experience. They selectively alternate between snapshots of and trends in Massachusetts and comparisons between Massachusetts and the United States.

The most appropriate way to assess the impact of the Massachusetts law is to compare changes over time in things like health coverage and premium costs in Massachusetts to changes over time in the United States as a whole. We use that approach below to debunk many of the myths opponents propagate regarding Massachusetts’s experience with health care reform.
Massachusetts increased health coverage while coverage declined in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts law failed to significantly reduce the ranks of the uninsured in the state.
Fact

The Massachusetts health reform law dramatically increased the insurance rate in the state over a period when the national health coverage rate declined. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of the state’s residents were insured compared to 87.5 percent in 2006 when the law was enacted. Almost all children in the state were insured in 2010 (99.8 percent). In comparison, at the national level the health insurance rate dropped from 85.2 percent in 2006 to 84.6 percent in 2010.
Employers continued the same level of health coverage in Massachusetts while dropping people in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is eroding employer-sponsored health insurance.
Fact

The number of people in Massachusetts with employer-sponsored health insurance has not dipped below 2006 levels since passage of the health reform law. Approximately 4.3 million people in Massachusetts obtained health insurance through their employer in 2006. This figure increased to 4.5 million in 2008 before returning to 2006 levels in 2010. In comparison, the number of nonelderly people in the United States with employer-sponsored health coverage declined from 161.7 million in 2006 to 156.1 million in 2009.

Since passage of Massachusetts’s health reform law, a larger share of the state’s employers have offered health insurance to their workers when compared to the United States as a whole. At the national level only 60 percent of employers offered health coverage to their employees in 2005. This is significantly lower than Massachusetts’s rate of 70 percent at that time. The Massachusetts rate increased to 76 percent in 2009, which is 7 percentage points higher than the national figure for 2010.
People buying insurance on their own in Massachusetts are paying lower premiums. Premiums in the nongroup market have increased in the rest of the country.
Myth

Massachusetts residents are paying higher premiums in the nongroup market as a result of the health reform law.
Fact

Nongroup health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have fallen by as much as 40 percent since 2006 because health reform brought healthy people into the insurance market. In contrast, at the national level nongroup premiums have risen 14 percent over that period of time.
More than 98 percent of Bay Staters met the law’s individual insurance requirement.
Myth

A significant portion of Massachusetts residents are ignoring the mandate and only purchasing health insurance when they need care.
Fact

The size of Massachusetts’s individual market more than doubled after passage of the health reform law. This boost and the accompanying drop in the average cost of individual premiums were due in part to more healthy—and previously uninsured—individuals entering the market. Only 1.3 percent of the state’s 4 million tax filers who were required to and did report their coverage status were assessed a penalty for lacking coverage in 2008, the last year for which complete data are available. About 26,000 of these 56,000 people were actually in compliance for part of the year.
The cost of health care in Massachusetts is in line with expectations.
Myth

The Massachusetts law is bankrupting the state.
Fact

The fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, or MTF, finds that under reform, “State spending is in line with what [the organization] expected.” An MTF report released in 2009 found that state spending on health reform increased from $1.041 billion in fiscal year 2006 to a projected $1.748 billion in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $707 million over the four-year period, half of which is covered by the federal government.

Higher-than-expected enrollment in Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized health insurance program, initially raised fears that policymakers had dramatically underestimated the number of low-income uninsured in Massachusetts. These concerns, however, were unfounded. Commonwealth Care enrollment peaked in mid-2008 with 176,000 members. The MTF attributes the initial rapid growth in Commonwealth Care enrollment to the state’s early success in getting residents signed up for the program.
The majority of people in Massachusetts like the health reform law, and it has gotten more popular over time.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is highly unpopular among members of the public, the business community, and policymakers.
Fact

Support for the law is strong among members of the public. Sixty-one percent of the Massachusetts nonelderly population approved of the law when it passed in 2006. Two years later, 69 percent of nonelderly adults viewed the law favorably. In a survey of employers conducted in 2007—shortly after passage of the health reform law—a majority of Massachusetts firms surveyed agreed that “all employers bear some responsibility for providing health benefits to their workers.”20 A survey of employers conducted a year later—after the individual and employer mandates were implemented— found that a majority of firms believed the law was “good for Massachusetts.”

The Massachusetts health reform law was also a bipartisan achievement, drawing support from both sides of the aisle throughout the process. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature with support from its Republican members and then signed by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.
Massachusetts is building on its 2006 reforms to promote better quality care at lower costs.
Myth

Current Gov. Deval Patrick is proposing to ration health care in Massachusetts.
Fact

Gov. Patrick’s proposal would make Massachusetts a leader in nationwide efforts to reform health care delivery and bring down costs. The governor has proposed new tools for achieving integrated care—by holding providers accountable for working with each other and their patients to coordinate and delivery higher-quality care at a lower cost.

These innovative tools encourage providers to deliver better care—replacing the current payment system’s set of incentives that provide more care regardless of value. Indeed, more care can sometimes be harmful to patients. Hospital-acquired infections and medical errors are among the most common causes of preventable deaths and injuries in U.S. hospitals. Medical errors accounted for 238,000 preventable deaths in Medicare and cost the program $8.8 billion from 2004 to 2006. A recent study found that sepsis and pneumonia caused by hospital-acquired infections resulted in 48,000 deaths in 2006 and cost the program $8.1 billion.
Conclusion

The Massachusetts health reform law is a success story from every perspective. The state has expanded health coverage to almost all of its residents, maintained a strong market for employer-sponsored health insurance, gained the support of the business community and the public, and is moving forward in containing costs. We can look forward to a similar positive experience across the nation as we implement the Affordable Care Act modeled in large part on the Massachusetts law. Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst at the Center.

Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst, and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst for American Progress.

Download this brief (pdf)

Read in your web browser on Scribd

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org



Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts


Here is more on MA healthcare law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massac...th_care_reform




Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
Share on linkedin Share on email More Sharing Services
Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' comprehensive health reform designed to provide near-universal health insurance coverage for state residents. Building on a long history of health reform efforts, the state embarked on an ambitious plan to promote shared individual, employer, and government responsibility.

This brief examines Massachusetts' experience with coverage and access to care over the last six years, as well as the state's ongoing efforts to deal with persistent high health-care costs. The brief also compares Massachusetts health reform with the national reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010.

Reports, Studies and Toplines Icon Issue Brief (.pdf)


Information provided by State Health Care Reform Initiative
Publication Number: 8311
Publish Date: 2012-05-21

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8311.cfm



Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz20uKfsDVc



And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....

Originally Posted by kathyet

Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The State Model for the Affordable Care Act Is Working and Broadly Popular



Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Timothy Murphy in 2006 after signing into law a landmark bill designed to guarantee virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance

Download this brief (pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._myth_fact.pdf

Read in your web browser on Scribd
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law one year ago. It is modeled in large part on the landmark Massachusetts health reform law enacted four years earlier in 2006. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act often attack it by distorting the facts about the Massachusetts experience. They selectively alternate between snapshots of and trends in Massachusetts and comparisons between Massachusetts and the United States.

The most appropriate way to assess the impact of the Massachusetts law is to compare changes over time in things like health coverage and premium costs in Massachusetts to changes over time in the United States as a whole. We use that approach below to debunk many of the myths opponents propagate regarding Massachusetts’s experience with health care reform.
Massachusetts increased health coverage while coverage declined in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts law failed to significantly reduce the ranks of the uninsured in the state.
Fact

The Massachusetts health reform law dramatically increased the insurance rate in the state over a period when the national health coverage rate declined. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of the state’s residents were insured compared to 87.5 percent in 2006 when the law was enacted. Almost all children in the state were insured in 2010 (99.8 percent). In comparison, at the national level the health insurance rate dropped from 85.2 percent in 2006 to 84.6 percent in 2010.
Employers continued the same level of health coverage in Massachusetts while dropping people in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is eroding employer-sponsored health insurance.
Fact

The number of people in Massachusetts with employer-sponsored health insurance has not dipped below 2006 levels since passage of the health reform law. Approximately 4.3 million people in Massachusetts obtained health insurance through their employer in 2006. This figure increased to 4.5 million in 2008 before returning to 2006 levels in 2010. In comparison, the number of nonelderly people in the United States with employer-sponsored health coverage declined from 161.7 million in 2006 to 156.1 million in 2009.

Since passage of Massachusetts’s health reform law, a larger share of the state’s employers have offered health insurance to their workers when compared to the United States as a whole. At the national level only 60 percent of employers offered health coverage to their employees in 2005. This is significantly lower than Massachusetts’s rate of 70 percent at that time. The Massachusetts rate increased to 76 percent in 2009, which is 7 percentage points higher than the national figure for 2010.
People buying insurance on their own in Massachusetts are paying lower premiums. Premiums in the nongroup market have increased in the rest of the country.
Myth

Massachusetts residents are paying higher premiums in the nongroup market as a result of the health reform law.
Fact

Nongroup health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have fallen by as much as 40 percent since 2006 because health reform brought healthy people into the insurance market. In contrast, at the national level nongroup premiums have risen 14 percent over that period of time.
More than 98 percent of Bay Staters met the law’s individual insurance requirement.
Myth

A significant portion of Massachusetts residents are ignoring the mandate and only purchasing health insurance when they need care.
Fact

The size of Massachusetts’s individual market more than doubled after passage of the health reform law. This boost and the accompanying drop in the average cost of individual premiums were due in part to more healthy—and previously uninsured—individuals entering the market. Only 1.3 percent of the state’s 4 million tax filers who were required to and did report their coverage status were assessed a penalty for lacking coverage in 2008, the last year for which complete data are available. About 26,000 of these 56,000 people were actually in compliance for part of the year.
The cost of health care in Massachusetts is in line with expectations.
Myth

The Massachusetts law is bankrupting the state.
Fact

The fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, or MTF, finds that under reform, “State spending is in line with what [the organization] expected.” An MTF report released in 2009 found that state spending on health reform increased from $1.041 billion in fiscal year 2006 to a projected $1.748 billion in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $707 million over the four-year period, half of which is covered by the federal government.

Higher-than-expected enrollment in Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized health insurance program, initially raised fears that policymakers had dramatically underestimated the number of low-income uninsured in Massachusetts. These concerns, however, were unfounded. Commonwealth Care enrollment peaked in mid-2008 with 176,000 members. The MTF attributes the initial rapid growth in Commonwealth Care enrollment to the state’s early success in getting residents signed up for the program.
The majority of people in Massachusetts like the health reform law, and it has gotten more popular over time.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is highly unpopular among members of the public, the business community, and policymakers.
Fact

Support for the law is strong among members of the public. Sixty-one percent of the Massachusetts nonelderly population approved of the law when it passed in 2006. Two years later, 69 percent of nonelderly adults viewed the law favorably. In a survey of employers conducted in 2007—shortly after passage of the health reform law—a majority of Massachusetts firms surveyed agreed that “all employers bear some responsibility for providing health benefits to their workers.”20 A survey of employers conducted a year later—after the individual and employer mandates were implemented— found that a majority of firms believed the law was “good for Massachusetts.”

The Massachusetts health reform law was also a bipartisan achievement, drawing support from both sides of the aisle throughout the process. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature with support from its Republican members and then signed by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.
Massachusetts is building on its 2006 reforms to promote better quality care at lower costs.
Myth

Current Gov. Deval Patrick is proposing to ration health care in Massachusetts.
Fact

Gov. Patrick’s proposal would make Massachusetts a leader in nationwide efforts to reform health care delivery and bring down costs. The governor has proposed new tools for achieving integrated care—by holding providers accountable for working with each other and their patients to coordinate and delivery higher-quality care at a lower cost.

These innovative tools encourage providers to deliver better care—replacing the current payment system’s set of incentives that provide more care regardless of value. Indeed, more care can sometimes be harmful to patients. Hospital-acquired infections and medical errors are among the most common causes of preventable deaths and injuries in U.S. hospitals. Medical errors accounted for 238,000 preventable deaths in Medicare and cost the program $8.8 billion from 2004 to 2006. A recent study found that sepsis and pneumonia caused by hospital-acquired infections resulted in 48,000 deaths in 2006 and cost the program $8.1 billion.
Conclusion

The Massachusetts health reform law is a success story from every perspective. The state has expanded health coverage to almost all of its residents, maintained a strong market for employer-sponsored health insurance, gained the support of the business community and the public, and is moving forward in containing costs. We can look forward to a similar positive experience across the nation as we implement the Affordable Care Act modeled in large part on the Massachusetts law. Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst at the Center.

Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst, and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst for American Progress.

Download this brief (pdf)

Read in your web browser on Scribd

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org



Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts


Here is more on MA healthcare law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massac...th_care_reform




Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
Share on linkedin Share on email More Sharing Services
Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' comprehensive health reform designed to provide near-universal health insurance coverage for state residents. Building on a long history of health reform efforts, the state embarked on an ambitious plan to promote shared individual, employer, and government responsibility.

This brief examines Massachusetts' experience with coverage and access to care over the last six years, as well as the state's ongoing efforts to deal with persistent high health-care costs. The brief also compares Massachusetts health reform with the national reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010.

Reports, Studies and Toplines Icon Issue Brief (.pdf)


Information provided by State Health Care Reform Initiative
Publication Number: 8311
Publish Date: 2012-05-21

Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later - Kaiser Family Foundation



Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions

Read more: Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com



And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....

Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!

Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!


Hey it's my right I am a transplanted "Bostonian" born and bred LOL

Originally Posted by kathyet

Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!


Hey it's my right I am a transplanted "Bostonian" born and bred LOL

LOL! Everytime I see that fat face of his I imagine my hand connecting with it in slow motion until it finally makes that oh so satisfying, (and might I add LOVELY,) earsplitting slapping noise!

Originally Posted by MW

In my over 50 years of life I've been around the block a time or two and consider myself fairly well seasoned where politics are concerned. How about you, have you been voting for over 36 years? If so, you should have some idea of how the game is played by now. While it's important to win over your main voting block, in this case Republican voters, it's also important to appeal to the Independent voters. With that said, a very important rule in politics is to avoid antagonizing your enemy as much as possible because it will only serve to force them to the polls against you. Every Obama voter that stays home on election day is a victory for Romney. Many former Obama voters, mostly Independents, have already had enough of Obama and will switch their vote this time around. As for hardcore liberal voters ........ well, there isn't much you can do with them except hope some of them have lost interest in Obama and decide to stay home on election day. Now there is some real money to be made on the black voting block this time around. I'm feeling that the newness, and Obama's failure to help their situation, will keep many of them home this year. Additionally, many in that voting block are very disturbed at Obama's support of gay marriage and that too will keep many of them home because they will not vote Republican (generalizing). Remember, the black voting block turned out overwhelmingly in favor of Obama last time around. This year I'm thinking that wont be the case (I'm hopeful many will stay home).


You don't antagonize a dog because he will bite you, nor do you reveal your hand in the middle of a game. I honestly don't think Romney's strategy is a bad one. I say keep the opposition guessing just long enough to get in the White House and than reveal your hand on immigration. All the signs of where Romney stands on the issue are there for anyone that cares to look. Remember, strategy is all about gaining a position of advantage over your adversary. If being vague on certain details helps to keep the enemy calm and docile ....... so be it. For some reason you seem to think his vagueness is an attempt at keeping something from us when in reality it is probably to keep his plans from the opposition ...... smart play.

Ah a smart play indeed. A smart play to disappoint those on our side that are tired of waiting for a candidate that will finally take a stand and put his/her foot down on illegal immigration. He rather concern himself with not pissing off a population that is not supposed to be in this country than those of us (the majority of the country I may add) that want illegal immigration addressed after decades of neglect? Really??? You're right, there are plenty of youtube videos of him supporting amnesty, so it's all our there for you to see. I'm only 24 years old and so I'm surprised that someone such as yourself who has lived far longer than me is still tolerating this crap. Jeez, wake up already man.


By the way, so where was this so called smart play when he opposed Obamacare? Did he not supposedly now antagonize the other side? Why can he take a stand on issues such as supporting Israel, opposing gay marriage, obamacare etc. but not illegal immigration? Why not remain vague on everything and say, "Elect me and find out where I stand on all the following issues! It'll be a surprise!". What's so special about illegal immigration over other issues that it warrants this marvelous strategy of vagueness?

Originally Posted by MW

....

... I say keep the opposition guessing just long enough to get in the White House and than reveal your hand on immigration. All the signs of where Romney stands on the issue are there for anyone that cares to look. Remember, strategy is all about gaining a position of advantage over your adversary. If being vague on certain details helps to keep the enemy calm and docile ....... so be it. For some reason you seem to think his vagueness is an attempt at keeping something from us when in reality it is probably to keep his plans from the opposition ...... smart play.

The problem is that he is not very vague on the issue of illegal immigration. He has said he supports amnesty. We have videos posted here. Unless you can show evidence suggesting something like a contrary view, then we can assume he will support amnesty.

First off I want to say that I am against illegal immigration and have been fighting this battle hard for years. I have watched here in California as Liberal Democrats and Anchor Babies have taken over our State Government. We are outnumbered and no longer have any say whatsoever. I have watched as our state government has abandoned the pretense of representing all Californians. Now I am watching our Federal Government following in the sameway.

I have been watching everyone fighting over who to vote for. How hard is Romney on illegal immigration being vague on Amnesty, CIR, etc. I know in a perfect world we would have William running for President. Only then could we all agree, but unfortunetly we have Obama or Romney.

I have been giving a lot of thought as to how and when was California lost and how to save the rest of the country. I have given up on American's getting fed up and taking to the streets in protest. So what do we do? How do we stop it?

We are constantly on the offense. We want every politican as angry as we are, right there next to us ready to fight, and we will except nothing less. Our fighting amongst ourselves only hurts us and I question whether our all or nothing attitude will eventually bite us in the butt.

Here is my question to everyone. I agree with completely fighting against Amnesty or CIR, but are we going to be prepared with a plan B if Amnesty or CIR becomes inevitable? Are we just going to rely on our calls to Congress or are we going to be represented in the planning of say a CIR? We know LaRaza, the Hispanic Caucus and other open border groups are going to be right there with their input and demands, but what about us? How do we get to the table?