Politics

Republicans Emphatically Approve 2012 ‘American Dream’ Platform — Here‘s What’s in It

Official 2012 Republican Platfrom Approved at Republican National Convention

People hold signs that say 'Mitt!' as U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. (Credit: Getty Images)

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Republicans emphatically approved a toughly worded party platform at their national convention Tuesday that would ban all abortions and gay marriages, reshape Medicare into a voucher-like program and cut taxes to energize the economy and create jobs.

The document opens by warning that while the American Dream has long been of equal opportunity for everyone, “Today that American Dream is at risk.“ It pledges that the GOP will ”begin anew, with profound changes in the way government operates; the way it budgets, taxes and regulates.”

Both parties routinely approve platforms at their conventions every four years, meant to encapsulate their principles and goals. Much of their details are customarily ignored when it comes to actually governing.

Even so, a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found more people interested in the GOP platform than in the upcoming acceptance speeches by presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan. The survey found that 52 percent said they were interested in learning about the Republican platform, compared to 44 percent interested in Romney‘s speech and 46 percent interested in Ryan’s.

“This ambitious blueprint projects a sea change in the way that government works,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who led the party’s platform committee. “It offers a solution for workers without jobs, families without savings and neighborhoods without hope.”

Democrats lambasted the platform and immediately sought to tie it to Romney, who has differed from some of its details. For instance, he has said he would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is threatened.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is among several Democrats in Tampa trying to get their party’s views heard, called the platform’s stances on abortion and immigration “draconian” and “extreme” and blamed Romney. “What you have seen from him is that he does one thing, he says another,” Villaraigosa said. “He has taken one position after another, time and again you know, and you can’t have it both ways.”

Here are key elements of the Republican platform:

JOB CREATION:

It states that the best jobs program is economic growth. “We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs.”

—

SMALL BUSINESS:

The GOP pledges to reform the tax code to make it easier for businesses to generate more capital and create more jobs.

—

TAXES:

“We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations.”

It says a Republican administration would extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, pending reform of the tax code. It says the party would strive to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains altogether for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. It also would work to repeal the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.

The party backs constitutional amendments to balance the federal budget and require a super majority for any tax increases.

—

MARRIAGE:

The platform affirms the rights of states and the federal government not to recognize same-sex marriage. It backs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

—

VOTER INTEGRITY:

“Voter fraud is a political poison,” the platform says. It praises legislation to require photo identification for voting and to prevent election fraud.

—

GUN CONTROL:

The party says it opposes legislation intended to restrict Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton presidency.

—

ABORTION:

The party states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage.

—

ENERGY:

The party is committed to domestic energy independence and an “all-of-the-above” energy policy, backing the exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. It criticizes the Obama administration for picking winners and losers in the energy sector and expresses support for new coal-fired plants that will be low-cost, environmentally responsible and efficient.

It adds: “We will end the EPA‘s war on coal and encourage the increased safe development in all regions of the nation’s coal resources.“ It calls on Congress to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations ”that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century.”

—-

MEDICARE and MEDICAID:

The platform pledges to move both Medicare and Medicaid away from “the current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model.” It supports a Medicare transition to a premium-support model with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee’s choice. Age eligibility in Medicare must be made more realistic in light of longer life spans.

Medicaid services for low income people would be transformed into a block grant program in which the states would be given the flexibility to determine the best programs for their residents.

—-

IMMIGRATION:

The platform makes clear that “we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it.” It demands that the Justice Department halt lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama and other states that have enacted tough measures against illegal immigrants. It says federal funding should be denied to universities that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants. It advocates making English the official national language.

—-

HEALTH CARE:

It states that a Republican president on his first day in office would use his waiver authority to halt progress in carrying out the health care act pushed through by President Barack Obama and that Republican victories in November would guarantee that the act is never implemented. It proposes a Republican plan based on improving health care quality and lowering costs and a system that promotes the free market and gives consumers more choice.

—-

EDUCATION:

Republicans support consumer choice, including home schooling, local innovations such as single-sex classes, full-day school hours and year-round schools. It says Republicans renew their call for replacing family planning programs for teens “with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior.”

—-

DEFENSE:

The platform says Republicans are “the party of peace through strength” and support the concept of American exceptionalism – “the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history.” It criticizes the current administration for its weak positions toward such countries as North Korea, China and Iran and its reductions in military spending. The Republican national military strategy “restores as a principal objective the deterrence using the full spectrum of our military capabilities.”

Comments (162)

1 2
  • pissantno.10
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:28pm

    paulbots and libs poor things. they might have to get jobs soon or starve and no darn birth controle soooy cide may help end there pain

    Report Post »  
    • inblack
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:32pm

      @PISSANTNO.10

      What are you babbling about?

      Report Post »  
    • lordjosh
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:25pm

      What on earth makes you believe RP supporters are avoiding work and looking for government supplemented birth control? Could you possibly show any evidence of that.

      It looks to me like the RNC’s platform for medicare /medicade is a single payer system. One that would require employees/citizens to pay into it starting from time of emplyment but not recieving any benefits until reaching a required age. Like the same single payer retirement program called Social Security. And Obamacare, whose only difference is that benefits are set to begin for the contributors.
      Who’s the party for limited government again?

      Report Post » lordjosh  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:40pm

      Oh man. And you bought it? You still believe that cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs? If that were the case, we’d sure be having lots of job creation since the Bush tax cuts, including now, since the cuts are still in effect. Job creation under Bush was the worst in a century. That little experiment obviously failed. But the rich people who buy these politicians have to give you suckers some reason to believe it’s good to cut their taxes further. They have you lapdogs pegged, that’s for sure. Yeah sure, give the richest yet another tax break and it’ll help ya out this time, even though Bush‘s first two didn’t!

      Of course those tax cuts ballooned the deficit and continue to do so, not to mention the wars Bush started. Maybe you didn’t notice, but there isn’t a single thing in the platform about what Republicans would do to reduce the deficit, outside of converting of replacing Medicare with a voucher system which only saves money by shifting the cost of medical care to those who need it most and are least able to pay.

      So how are we going to pay for all that lost revenue by further reducing taxes on the rich, who are already paying less that you in taxes? You are paying for it, that’s how.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:57pm

      @JZS,

      So raising taxes on the rich creates jobs?

      Hmmm, well we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. How’s that working for us?

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 12:49am

      So JZS, do you truly want everybody to believe that you are that much of a simpleton? Still harping the same thing after so many of the people here done their best to point you in the right direction. For you we’ll keep this super simple this time.
      #1 Dot Com bubble popped near the end of the Clinton Administration. The collapse of so many of those companies did what? How many people lost their jobs?
      #2 It was Clinton himself via executive order requiring lending institutions to accept those sub prime mortgages. It just took time to snowball, and hit hard after Bush came into office. The damage was already done.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:21am

      Hi RJJ,

      Check out the “Commodities Modification Act of 2000”. Clinton signed it into law just before leaving office. It modified the 1937 law that stopped gambling on derivatives that caused the Great Depression and it was responsible for the Dot Com crash.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • BowToNobody
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 2:47am

      “Republicans Emphatically Approve 2012 ‘American Dream’ Platform”

      … and blood SHOOTS out of Glenn Beck’s eyes at a Republican mention of … “American Dream”. How about YOUR eyes?

      Republican Party is now officially Progressive-Republican & Progressives-Democrats welcome their new comrades to their “American Dream”!

      Report Post » BowToNobody  
    • bharris0
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 6:55am

      I have your paulbot right here in my pocket idjiot.

      If you even remotely believe these liars you are too stupid to be voting.
      They are destroying our republic with every vote they take and you trust them ???
      I would suggest that you remove your head from your rectum and pay attention to how they are screwing us.

      Report Post »  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:40am

      @JZS who said ” You still believe that cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs? ”

      Actually that is not what we believe. What we believe is cutting TAX RATES creates jobs – and more taxes. In 2002, there were 136.5 million people employed. Five years later (after the tax rate cuts of 2002/2003) there was 145.4 million, an increase of almost 9 million. Meanwhile tax receipts went UP by 50% and the percent of taxes paid by the top one percent increased from 32% to a current 37%.

      Unfortunately tax rates aren’t the only factor in the economy and the Dems managed to mess up this success story royally.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:44am

      ecbuck, your statistics are nonsense. Did you just make them up? If not, what is your source?

      You are flat wrong. During Bush’s first term the net increase in jobs was 0.0%. In the second term, 0.2%. The idea that 9 million jobs were created is not only false, it’s ridiculous.

      And no, tax revenue did not increase, despite your ludicrous Laffer curve theory. I hate to break the news to you, but the deficit skyrocketed during Bush’s term. Here’s how it actually works: when you cut taxes by a dollar, you cut revenue by a dollar. It’s really that simple. Of course those guys who are contributing millions of bucks to the superpacs want you to believe if you cut their taxes further, uh, YOU will benefit. Jeez people believe that crap.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • atechgeek
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:30pm

      @JZS : Logic proves that raising taxes reduces revenue. If you raise taxes on people and companies, the people have less to spend, the companies hire less, make less, and sell at a higher price passing on the tax burden to the consumer. The net result is less revenue for the government.

      A good example … My county, in the last drought, put a ban on water usage, as they should have. Low and behold, the revenue was dramatically reduced .. makes sense .. right ? Now … to combat the revenue loss, they raised the price of water. The drought ends. The end result was people end up using less water still because they are paying more for the water they use and the revenue was still less for the government. Had they not raised the price of water, they would have recovered to the rate they were collecting before. If they were to lower the price of water, the rate of use would go up producing more revenue.

      It baffles my mind that liberals hate when people make money. They should be the biggest advocates of capitalism. The more money people make, the more revenue they make. It’s a win win. Instead, they raise taxes making it more difficult to do business resulting in less business and thus less revenue. Go figure.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 2:36pm

      atechgeek says, “Logic proves that raising taxes reduces revenue.” Your logic maybe. You can imagine how you wish things were (meaning what the richest have convinced you to believe) but what matters is reality. Here‘s someone else’s logic:

      “The cost of the tax cuts depends on the baseline,” says Stan Collender, a partner at Qorvis Communications in Washington and a budget expert.

      Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected. Extending the cuts to households making over $250,000 a year accounts for $32 billion of that.

      Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.”

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1206/What-will-deal-on-Bush-tax-cuts-mean-for-the-federal-deficit

      No cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue, except in Alice’s Wonderland. Reagan cut taxes, the deficit soared, Bush cut taxes, the deficit soared. Just like you’d expect.

      No, liberals don’t hate making money. That’s just silly. I actually do pretty well myself. What liberals hate is seeing the concentration of wealth gradually be concentrated into fewer and fewer hand, while real income and wealth for middle America and the poor declines. Simply because of government policy.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 3:03pm

      At JZS – my numbers are dead on and come from the US Census Bureau:

      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0586.pdf

      Why would you measure the impact of the tax rate cuts from the beginning of Bush’s term? The cuts didn’t come until 2-3yrs later. AFTER the cuts, employment went up by 9 million over the next five years.

      And tax revenues grew dramatically as well. In 2003 total receipts were $1,782 billion, in 2007 they were 2.567 billion. Over that same time frame the deficit dropped from $538 billion to $342 billion.

      Source: whitehouse.gov http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 3:46pm

      ecbuck, I am happy to help you out on this.

      As far as job growth under Bush, you are looking at the wrong column in:
      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0586.pdf

      When Bush came into office in 2001, 66.8% of the population was employed. When he left office, 66% were employed. In other words, jobs were created at a lower rate than population growth. In fact, Bush had the worst rate of job growth in the US history:

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

      In your other link, I’m a little baffled by your selective choice of years. Here’s what I see. In 2001, the year Bush took office, there was a surplus of 128.2 million dollars. When he left office at the end of 2008, there was a yearly deficit of almost a half trillion dollars.

      You’re trying to say job growth was good under Bush and the deficit did not increase? Seriously? Even most conservatives know better than that.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 4:32pm

      Once again JZS, if our intent is to measure the impact of tax rate cuts, why would you start your measurement in 2001 – 2-3 years ahead of the tax cuts unless you are just trying to deceive. The relevant period is the years immediately after the tax cuts. In that time from jobs grew by 9 million and tax revenues nearly doubled.

      “You’re trying to say job growth was good under Bush”

      Not what I said at all. We were discussing the impact on tax rate cuts on jobs not 9/11 or the housing bubble. I said job growth was strong after the tax rate cuts – which it was, growing by 9 million jobs.

      Report Post »  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 4:44pm

      Oh – and BTW JZS – after Reagan cut tax rates in 1981, employment grew by 14 million through the rest of his terms reversing in a year what had been the worst recession since WWII at the time. Oh, and tax revenues rose 50% (20% inflation adjusted) aver the same time frame.

      Report Post »  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 4:54pm

      Finally JZS – Lets look at Kenndy’s 1964 tax cuts. I don’t have the raw jobs number but in 1964 the unemployment rate was 5.2 percent. After the tax cuts, the unemployment rate dropped each year for the next five years to a low of 3.5% and tax receipts went up 70% over the next 6 years. So yes JZS – tax rate cuts do create more jobs and higher tax revenues.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 5:55pm

      @jzs

      Sorry boy, you’re wrong again. Here’s what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say. Play CLOSE attention to when the Dems took over both Houses of Congress….

      http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 6:28pm

      @JZS who said “Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected.”

      That is only true if nothing else changes. But, when tax rates change, peoples behavior changes. People become more productive when tax rates drop, it was true for Kennedy, it was true for Reagan and it was true for Bush

      “No cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue, except in Alice’s Wonderland. Reagan cut taxes, the deficit soared, Bush cut taxes, the deficit soared. Just like you’d expect.”

      JZS you do realize that deficits are difference between two items -revenues and SPENDING. The deficits may have gone up, but not because revenues went down it was because spending went up. Now like then, the problem isn’t too little taxes, its too much spending.

      Report Post »  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 6:54pm

      Ecbuck

      I have asked JZS for over a year to explain how raising taxes grows the economy.

      Question: Mr. /Mrs. Business owner, which option will make it easier for your business to grow – A) Higher taxes B) Lower taxes? He deflects the question.

      I have asked JZS for over a year to explain how lower taxes raise the deficit.

      A deficit is SPENDING more than you take in. If you spend less than you receive you have no deficit, regardless of tax rates.

      He has answered with the same illogical response of “$ in tax cuts = $ added to deficit” that he gave you. A real life example to illustrate the absurdness of that statement would be if you got a salary decrease would you automatically have an increase of the same amount in debt? Of course not.

      What is strange is has never mentioned spending less as an option of lowering the deficit. Seriously, he hasn’t!

      What is most disheartening is JZS believes you should create a benefit to the government (creating jobs for instance) as a prerequisite for not having your taxes raised and if you don’t provide a benefit you deserve to pay higher taxes. He claims small business owners should have their taxes raised because they do not create jobs. As if the purpose of life is to support an ever expanding government.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:06pm

      Speck – The part that is hard to figure out is whether he is really that ignorant or so indoctrinated that he just ignores the facts. Unfortunately, I believe for the majority of the Obama supporters are just ignorant (not used in a pejorative sense), they just don’t know the real facts and just regurgitate the deceptions published by the likes of JZS. In JZS case, however, he appears to be brainwashed and the facts don’t matter even when presented to him on a platter.

      Report Post »  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:08pm

      Hey Monk

      To be fair to JZS, he doesn’t acknowledge that the republican congress forced Clinton to balance the budget so why would he acknowledge the econ tanking after Dems took over? He also doesn’t acknowledge that the Democrats caused the crash of the housing market which got us in the mess to begin with.

      The last thing JZS won’t acknowledge is Obama himself said is if the problem isn’t fixed in 3 years he should be a one termer.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:09pm

      Hi SpeckChaser,

      It‘s easy to understand JZS if you listen to one of his guru’s……

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRjU9P5eo

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:40pm

      Hi SpeckChaser

      I understand the first part but disagree with the second part a bit and want to clarify it.

      “The last thing JZS won’t acknowledge is Obama himself said is if the problem isn’t fixed in 3 years he should be a one termer.”

      The reason I disagree is simple and most everyone didn’t listen to “exactly” what Obama said. He did not say, “one term Presidency” he said “one term prostitution”. There is a difference. A “one term Presidency” means he losses and goes away. A “one term prostitution” means he looses but declares martial law. Check out this link and listen carefully while watching his body language.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:20pm

      Oh ecbuck, still you persist picking and choosing data to support your idea that job creation and tax revenue was higher than population growth under Bush? That revisionist history but something I’m happy to address. I see you are not trying to defend Bush’s management of government finances. Good. He blew out the deficit. And revenue doubled after the Bush tax cuts? Oh please.

      Back to the data. When Clinton was in office, from 2001 to 2008, yes, according to your table, revenue did almost doubled from 1 to 2 trillion. Note to ebuck: revenue doubled, but no tax cuts. Taxes were in fact a lot higher.

      Bush passed his first tax cut in 2001 (EGTRRA). Tax revenues dropped the next two years. So he tried again in 2003 (JGTRRA). Revenue did rise slightly for several years, although far less than during the Clinton administration or the Carter administration. According to the data your have referenced, revenue increased an average 1% per year following the Bush tax cuts. Under Clinton, with no tax cuts, revenue increase an average 5% per year. Under Carter – no tax cuts! – the revenue yearly increase was 11%.

      Ebuck, you seem like a smart guy but you’re just picking data that support your contention, and ignoring data that refutes your idea. As a statistician and economist, sorry but you get a D-.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:30pm

      Ecbuck

      I think JZS wants to look intelligent and would rather lie or misrepresent the truth to appear that way. There is a reason we have the phrase “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Here is an example.

      JZS says taking money out of the economy via higher taxes will grow the economy. What?

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:37pm

      Hey J-Zak…..

      J-Zak says…. “Back to the data. When Clinton was in office, from 2001 to 2008…”

      Clinton was in office from 2001 to 2008? Geez, you’re so stupid! Your Momma would be so ashamed.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:52pm

      Hey JZS

      When can we expect you to explain how raising taxes on businesses will grow the economy?

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:03pm

      Hi SpeckChaser
      “Hey JZS When can we expect you to explain how raising taxes on businesses will grow the economy?”

      That’s easy. Do you want me to explain J-Zak’s reasoning on that subject? I can do it with a single link. Just let me know….. : )

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:32pm

      The-Monk says, “Back to the data. When Clinton was in office, from 2001 to 2008…”

      Monk, you’re right. Clinton was in office from 1993 to 2001 when the economy boomed. Sorry, yes, the years I mentioned were when Bush was in office, when the deficit skyrocketed and the economy collapsed. I feel foolish for having suggested that a Democrat was in office when that happened. However, you are welcome to open the spreadsheet ebay gave and check my statements. You know what a spreadsheet is don’t you?

      But seriously dude, shouldn’t you be meditating or weaving rugs or something? I’m not saying your stupid or anything, but this conversation is way over your head.

      Speck, no offense but this conversation is over your head too. I‘m sure you’re a nice guy. Although, the deficit hawk that you are, perhaps you can explain to me how the Republicans are going to further reduce taxes and increase the military budget and at the same time reduce the deficit. You can’t of course, because Romney can’t. It’s just a magic trick they claim they will perform if you vote for them.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:35pm

      @ JZS who said “And revenue doubled after the Bush tax cuts? Oh please.”

      Who said they doubled? More of your deception. They rose almost 50% and I provided the numbers that showed it – as well as the 9 mil increase in employment.

      “Bush passed his first tax cut in 2001 (EGTRRA). Tax revenues dropped the next two years.”

      That tax cut was nothing and you may not have been in New York as I was, but there was a “minor” event in 2001 that had nothing to do with taxes but a substantial impact on the economy. Bush’s major tax rate cuts occurred in 2003 and after that employment and tax revenues grew substantially. Just as they did under Reagan and Kennedy.

      Report Post »  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:58pm

      @JZS – And you want to cite Carter as your economic hero? The guy that brought gas lines, 18% interest rates and unemployment nearly as high as we have now? Wow – that’s some hero. But then, you probably weren’t alive to live through that.

      Of course, tax rates aren’t the only influence on employment. I can make the logical argument that lowering tax rates helps employment – and the numbers back that for every major decrease in tax rates. Can you make a logical argument how increasing tax rates helps employment? Was there possibly something else going on in the Clinton admin? (hint internet bubble). Has employment and tax revenue gone up every time taxes have been increased?

      Report Post »  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 30, 2012 at 12:32am

      JZS, we have patiently been waiting for over a year for your answer. Now is the time. Divert no longer…

      Explain your claim that raising taxes on businesses will grow the economy?

      I will bite just a tad on your diversionary question about Romney’s Magic Trick. Romney was not my first, second, or third choice. I disagree with him on more than one issue. You overlook that we vote for the lesser of the two evils. Was Bush my first choice? No. Was he heads and shoulders above John “Romney’s bank account is inferior to mine” Kerry or Al “The earth has less than three years before destruction” Gore? Of course so. So yea, Mitt isn’t perfect and likely not the next Reagan, you aren’t exactly letting the cat out of the bag. You can highlight his shortcomings all you want. He is still better than your nominee.

      Don’t forget to answer the question! Here it is again.

      Explain your claim that raising taxes on businesses will grow the economy?

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on August 30, 2012 at 12:35am

      Hey J-Zak…..

      J-Zak says, “But seriously dude, shouldn’t you be meditating or weaving rugs or something? I’m not saying your stupid or anything, but this conversation is way over your head.”

      How can this conversation be way over my head?

      Oh, I know! I spell “you are” like this “you’re” and J-Zak spells it like this, “your”.

      Learn to spell Chilean school teacher. Reading “your” posts is like grading a 1st graders English paper. Geez….

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • cantstandlibs
      Posted on August 30, 2012 at 3:23pm

      @jzs: you seem like a total moron. Bush 1) got us out of the Clinton recession 2) the “tax cuts” created such economic activity that we collected RECORD REVENUES. Of course, to lib morons, taxation’s primary purpose is to control behavior, not collect revenue. Your claims are outright lies, but perhaps you get your news from ms-lsd and are not to be blamed…

      Report Post »  
    • ecbuck
      Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:28pm

      ” Of course, to lib morons, taxation’s primary purpose is to control behavior, not collect revenue. ”

      Amen – There is nothing in the Constitution that enables the government to use taxes to control behavior. Taxes were solely authorized to enable the enumerated powers and controlling behavior is not one of them.

      Report Post »  
  • watashbuddyfriend
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:27pm

    Mitt, you have a marvelous opportunity to make a vast improvement in the next four-years, just don’t flub it like the present occupier!

    You have to exercise your wrist, and fingers to sign Ececutive Order to reverse those issued in the last FOUR years!

    Choose wisely those who can help you correct the mess created by Obama!

    Report Post »  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:25pm

    save the world

    slap a greenie
    and a paulbot
    and kick a democrap in his azz……………watch out for his head

    Report Post » Psychosis  
  • UnreconstructedLibertarian
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:21pm

    As far as platforms go – this is about as good as I’ve read in my lifetime. When I say “good”, I’ve never agreed with as many planks before. My disagreements can be dealt with, and are actually pretty small.

    I could do without the inclusion of “and the federal government” in the “marriage” plank – its the state’s right singularly, the Feds just need to let that issue alone.

    Why does the “healthcare” plank not include the word “REPEAL” in association with Obamacare?

    The whole “American Exceptionalism” bit could (should) have been omitted from the “Defense” plank. I get the eerie feeling its being applied to the government as a singular collective entity – rather than the individual quality of its citizens.

    All I ask, is PLEASE live up to these promises. If not, you might as well be Whigs – and prepare for electoral disaster in 2014 and 2016. This is the Republican Party “do or die” moment – you’d better make it good.

    Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • BenRayner
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:27pm

      Well said.

      Thank you.

      Report Post » BenRayner  
    • mrsuperpat
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:32pm

      Agreed. Except Libertarians and Conservatives better plan now to run a 3rd party in 2016. The repubs have clearly laid out their intentions to make it an insider club only.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:59pm

      BenRayner – likewise, thank you.

      MrSuperPat,
      Agreed. Libertarians need to start running right now for 2016. Today is the day to begin. The competition has been good in this election, as no sane Libertarian can read that platform and not see the influence Libertarianism has had on it. The continued competition from a Libertarian uprising will do nothing but keep the GOP honest and on track with this platform. If they don’t deliver, we’re ready in both 2014 in congressional mid-term and the balance in 2016.

      I really meant it, this is the Republican Party’s “do or die” moment.

      The GOP/Neo-Con fanatics will never admit it – but to any of us who have actually paid attention in any detail, that quoted portion in the “Abortion” plank – was directly from Ron Paul’s mouth during the debates.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • RealLiibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:05pm

      @Unreconstructedlibertarian- how do you justify being a libertarian and saying that we had influence on that platform? Increases in military spending? Amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage? What is libertarian about these ideas?

      Report Post »  
    • PFNW
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:42pm

      Well said! I also wondered why there wasn’t any mention to a full repeal of Obamacare.

      Report Post » PFNW  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:46pm

      Hey RealLibertarian – you might want to go up and read my first post.

      Abortion – the plank says the gov should get the hell out of it, financially and otherwise – doesn’t say anything about an Amendment. You won’t find a Libertarian worth their salt that denies the basic right to life – especially Ron Paul. Wake up. To create a life is to accept the responsibilty to care for it – its called personal responsibility for your actions. Libertarianism 101 – learn it.

      Gay Marriage – my first post disagrees with that plank. I do agree its a state’s choice, end of story. Our Constitution doesn’t have language about marriage, doesn’t need any – this is the decision of the individual States and is squarely in the realm of the 10th Amendment because it is NOT enumerated as a Federal responsibility – and shouldn’t be. Period. If you want to make a difference in your communitiy’s opinion – then get to work and change it – but leave those who choose otherwise the hell alone. Libertarianism 101 – learn it.

      Defense spending in the last plank – I agree defense spending is perhaps the ONLY constitutionally enumerated spending that can be considered for increase. However, I do not agree with nation building or world policing. I do not agree with putting our military personnel or material at risk to protect corporate risks. But, being a southerner, I do believe in keeping a much bigger stick than your potential enemy.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • shoulda coulda woulda
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:51pm

      I agree with your comments. The whole “standard of behavior” makes me a little antsy, but by an large I am OK.

      Mitt & Paul, Conservative and Republican law makers it’s being put in your hands, are you going to waste it or dig deep and do whats right. I am frankly skeptical, but I pray you don’t blow the opportunity being given you. Be sincere, be candid, be LEADERS and the Americans will give you a shot. May God Have Mercy on the US.

      Report Post »  
    • RealLiibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:19pm

      Unreconstructed- seems to me that you are the one who needs to learn about libertarianism. The freedom part of it seems to have slipped your mind. I don‘t care if it’s states or the Fed, government has no right to determine who has the marry whom. And as far as abortion goes, that is between a woman and her doctor, with nobody else involved. Abstinance education is totally useless, let’s teach real, scientific sex ed and leave the moralising out of it. Nowhere does the Constitution give government the right to determine a standard of behaviour. The government should stick to it’s small government role, leave the social engineering out of it on the federal, state, and local level. And don’t quote Paul to me, he’s a fake libertarian.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:52pm

      RealLibertarian,

      What part of my posts are you not understanding? You seem to subscribe to the notion government is that answer to your own dilemma. Would you really institute this dogmatic statement legislatively? “Abstinance education is totally useless, let’s teach real, scientific sex ed and leave the moralising out of it.”

      I’d advocate a fair competition of ideas – and let the best win by example. Simple as that. However, that has NOT been the role of government, it has chosen winners and loser according to its purpose. Both parties are guilty of that. Such notions are so mainstream, they are literally not recognized anymore as usurpations of real liberty.

      Liberty is freedom. That doesn’t necessarily define right or wrong by law – but allows the freedom of example to speak for itself. I have long realized that even folks calling themselves “Libertarian” who are on the fringe – would gladly invite the power of government to excuse their bad example and bail them out. Both by a “standard” definition of morality or by monetary bailout – even if that standard is the absolute absence of morality.

      I used the word “community” because I believe moral choices belong at the smallest subset of human occupation – not the largest. I had much rather see that choice set in law at the municipal level than the county. Much rather at the county level than State, etc. Any regression toward the individual level, is better than none.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • RealLiibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:23pm

      I believe moral choices belong at the smallest subset of human occupation – not the largest. I had much rather see that choice set in law at the municipal level than the county.- Unreconstructed

      +++++++++++++++++
      Morality belongs to the individual, period. It is not to be set by government at any level. That is where the TParty has failed. Instead of supporting freedom for all, it has made common cause with the religious loons who do want to legislate morality. It should not be mentioned in any party platform, especially when based on the religious claptrap so dear to the social conservatives of the party. I don’t care who marries who, or how many, as long as they are all consenting adults. I don’t care if a woman has an abortion, or many abortions. Not my problem. I do care when schools teach garbage, whether it is that everyone is a winner, or that abstinance is the best for society. It is not my job, your job, or society’s job to tell people how to live. It is not government’s place to engineer society in any way shape or form. We can cut up to 75% of government and never miss it. We can eliminate ALL the laws that are designed to placate people who are offended by something or other. We can eliminate references to morality by government. That is what a libertarian government is all about, that is what the TParty had the chance to be, before it failed.

      Report Post »  
    • lordjosh
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:38pm

      Unconstructelibertarian, you are wise and I love the name.

      @Reallibertarian You must admit you fall far away from libertarianism when you say “let’s teach real, scientific sex ed and leave the moralising out of it.”
      I propose we all stay out each others way in educating our children. You may teach you children what you wish. You may advocated in your town or county or state for what you deem just, but you can’t force it on anyone else and outside your state should certainly be of no concern of yours.

      Report Post » lordjosh  
    • RealLiibertarian
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:48pm

      LordJosh, what we teach our own children is up to us, as individuals. What the public school teaches should not be based on anything but hard facts. Abstinence is a moral viewpoint, not a scientific one. The same goes for many of the subjects taught in school, they are laced with a view to guiding kids in a particular direction. Time to take all bias out of public education, teach raw facts, and let students think for themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • termyt
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:55pm

      Every single law is legislated morality. That’s their basic function. Would you remove all laws? That we are each endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights is a moral stance. Where in your secular view is respect for the rights of others? An abortion is between a woman and her doctor? So the doctor out-ranks the father? What about the child’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

      Do you not realize that this country is founded on the principle that if you do not look out for the rights of others, you will not have you own rights for long, either?

      What laws do you support? Laws against murder? If you prohibit murder, you are forcing your morality claiming murder is wrong on those who would murder freely. Where do you draw the line?

      Report Post »  
    • lordjosh
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:59pm

      @Reallibertarian say’s

      “Abstinence is a moral viewpoint, not a scientific one.”

      Prove it. And prove birthcontrol is scientifically more capable of stopping unwanted pregnancies than abstinence.

      Report Post » lordjosh  
    • Belwraith
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 12:31am

      It’s a synopsis guys…“the key elements”….it’s not a word-for-word copy of the platform. It’s abbreviated….get it? You MIGHT not see the exact words you’re looking for because the article is a brief.

      Report Post »  
    • III_percenter
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 3:33am

      I would agree with the issue on “gay marriage” but some things have to happen first. I oppose gay marriage but on a wide variety of grounds. The problem with keeping the Feds out of marriage is that the government (on every level) is already interwoven throughout the institution. Does a gay couple married in Massechussetes retain legal status if they move to Texas? How about if they are visiting? As long as the law issues marriage licenses, special tax codes based on marital status and interferes with religious-based institutions that have a religious stance against homosexuality, I don’t see how the Federal government cannot weigh in on the issue: as soon as a married couple crosses a state line, it becomes a Federal topic. Back the government off those issues and restore marriage to the jurisdiction of the Church (like its supposed to be–true separation of Church and State) and I would agree completely.

      Report Post » III_percenter  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:09am

      BellWraith,
      Excellent point – and an appropriate reminder. I’ll hunt down and read the entire text before commenting any further on the platform itself.

      RealLibertarian,
      I do find your objection to abstinence fairly comical. For this reason – the hardest scientific fact about sex is (as demonstrated by all species requiring sexual reproduction) – if you don’t have sex, there is no reproduction. Therefore: the most logical, economic, and scientific way to avoid reproduction – is to abstain from sex. Abstinence is just as scientificly valid as any other topic on the matter – particularly in the area of unwanted pregnancy.

      Do animals have morals? Nope, but they are instinctively wise enough for the females to “abstain” from sex until their progeny are weaned and capable of sustaining themselves. Humans demonstrate the same capacity – as women will naturally not ovulate while suckling their young. Are animals economists? Nope. But they are instinctively wise enough to “abstain” from reproduction unless there is ample resources to successfully raise offspring. Example, Cattle won’t breed during a drought – because conditions are not sufficient to raise offspring successfully.

      Being a life-long farmer and engaging in another job that keeps me continually connected with nature, I constantly marvel at how mankind has become ignorant through feigned wisdom. Nature keeps reminding us of the hard facts, we keep trying in vain to prove nature wrong.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • jungle J
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:20pm

    no matter who wins there will be riots…some may call them celebrations but they will be riots.

    Report Post »  
  • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:13pm

    “Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is among several Democrats in Tampa trying to get their party’s views heard”
    —————————————-
    Why would he think anyone at an RNC Convention would listen to him? Go to your OWN convention.

    Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
  • ocrick
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:07pm

    American Dream? more like American Skeem.

    Report Post »  
    • Anadara
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:27pm

      These American values have worked for Americans for 200 years driving prosperity and making America the envy and hope of the entire globe. Now we have a world-class liar for a president and, regrettably, there will aways be stooges that believe that these American values are somehow extreme or untested. Jeffersonian values will always be the key to American exceptionalism.

      Report Post » Anadara  
  • louise
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:05pm

    One point of this article says “VOTER INTEGRITY:

    “Voter fraud is a political poison,” the platform says. It praises legislation to require photo identification for voting and to prevent election fraud.

    Wow. Voter fraud is a poison NOW? After what happened this afternoon?

    Report Post » louise  
    • Wool-Free Vision
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:19pm

      The fraud belongs at the feet of Ron Paul and his complicit zealots who instigated this entire debacle by tampering with the delegate process.

      Report Post » Wool-Free Vision  
    • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:00pm

      @wool,

      If you believe that then your willfully blind. Good luck creating your own reality.

      Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • Wool-Free Vision
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:17pm

      Rothbardian, please explain the following:

      ……………
      Airgun
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:53am

      Hmm, I was selected as a delegate in my hometown, and what I saw was an overwhelming vote for Romney by the public who voted in the primary; however almost all the people left after casting a ballot, so almost no-one saw that the people who stayed behind were Paulistinians who ignored the will of the people by voting and electing each other to the delegate slots at the national level. Strange, but that’s exactly what happened when Obama was elected, on top of all the fraud.
      ………….

      What was that chicanery, if not willful subversion? And now, here we are dealing with the fallout from it.

      Report Post » Wool-Free Vision  
    • Wool-Free Vision
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:37pm

      It is very telling that I have made this accusation in more than a half dozen threads which were teeming with Paulbots, and NOT ONCE has anyone tried to deny it, or even address it. In a forum where Paulbots have been rabidly voicing their opinions even in threads which have nothing at all to do with their issues, suddenly I can’t get any response. The resounding silence from the Paul faction is incriminating. Your hands are dirty and you want to keep them in your pockets.

      Report Post » Wool-Free Vision  
    • lordjosh
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:55pm

      @Wool Free vision

      Your answer is those are the rules set forth by the RNC. In those states, the peoples vote means nothing. The delegates are chosen by a different vote at the state conventions. It’s the rules that averone plays by and they are reaffirmed every four years. The romney campaign and the RNC leadership change those rules(possibly illegally) and denied the rightful delegation from maine to be seated.
      The shenanigans surrounding this years nomination seems to be coming from the RNC leadership and the MSM denying Ron Paul’s popularity.

      Report Post » lordjosh  
    • moedog95
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 12:04am

      ok let me see if I’m following here So because paul folk stayed after the vote and the romney folk did not. how is that the paul folks fault? Is anyone free to stay if they want the chance to become a delegate? See cause the way I was told during the primary‘s those beauty pageants as they were calling them didn’t really matter, especially if it was a state that Ron Paul held a good number in the media would play it off as if ” well these are just pageants they don’t matter much and such.etc etc.” So I guess you should look at the Romnet folk and ask why the hell did you guys try harder to get those delegate spots thats what the VOTING process is all about, but simply voting isn’t enough if you really want to have a big influence. sometimes you gotta play the game just like the other side is doing. fight fire with fire. And I think most the Romney folk were caught off guard as to how well these people organized their movement and learned to play the game to good for their comfort. And you can‘t claim they didn’t not play inside the rules, because they played the rules so good that the RNC had choice and was out of time and so imposed new rule changes at the last minute to save their own asses and panicked and that made it obvious to everyone what they were trying to do. And now the whole world has see it and there’s no going back and hiding it. The Republican party just basically committed political suicide.

      Report Post »  
    • moedog95
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:51am

      Well I guess wool free got his answer to his question no more comments from him/her.

      Report Post »  
  • Wdawg
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:04pm

    The Baby Boomers sure did screw over America!

    Wdawg  
    • jungle J
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:19pm

      big words…explain

      Report Post »  
    • A.D.Hominem
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:37pm

      Oye, Bungle in the Jungle, his point is self explanatory. Well, it is for a human being with the remnants of a few neurons. My bad for assuming your ability of independent thought. Take a look at the last half of the twentieth century in America, and you riddle me who caused the most damage.

      Report Post »  
    • termyt
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 12:09am

      So, you basically assert that the largest section of voting public is responsible for whatever mess we are or are not in and claim it as brilliant political insight. I am inclined to agree, but I can understand the confusion when one claims something so mundane is profound.

      Report Post »  
  • RealLiibertarian
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:55pm

    A fiscally sane, socially moronic platform. I refuse to accept that the concept of small government ever crossed the mids of the idiots that came up with this. Nobody can seriously believe a party that claims to want to reduce government’s impact on us while at the same time intruding on our private lives to reinstitute out of date social standards. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that makes sense.

    Report Post »  
    • inblack
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:37pm

      @REALLIIBERTARIAN

      “A fiscally sane” – wtf? This is not fiscally sane. It increases military spending even more.

      How about we fit into $1 trillion dollars for the whole budget, not $2.8 trillion and no balanced budget for the next 30 years.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:20pm

      Oopsie…It seems reallibertarian asked unreconstructedlibertarian how he justifies calling himself a libertarian and now reallibertarian has to defend calling himself a libertarian too! How silly. All y’all just trampling the constitution and all…bunch of neo-neo-con tyrants.

      Hail Ron Paul…or Jimmy Johnson…or Gary…or whoever…The rEVOloution rocks on…

      lol…

      Report Post »  
    • USA DJ
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:24am

      Libertarian is a great idea till you lose control of civility. Lets face it, we live in a country so divided if we did not have some rules to follow it would be utter caos. I like freedom as much as the next but you people are over the top. I like some of Ron Pauls ideas like auditing the Fed. but lets be realistic, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are not really in the race. Any vote not for Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama so deal with it. He wasn’t my first choice either but we have to start somewhere. Give him a chance to get us back to some sense of normalcy in our country before we lose it completly. Grow up, suck it up and help save our country from becoming a socialist nation where you don’t have the right to complain about anything. Romney/Ryan 2012!

      Report Post »  
    • WindyDualism
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:01am

      Hail Gary Paul and Ron Johnson. I personally like the high brow indy/windy talk that has math thrown out the window; I will take my vote home or give it to 0. Bleh, there, take that uber-neo-cons with the math issues. Sure, sleep well, write in Gary Paul or Rue Paul or Sue Johnson and lick 0′s boot. Great choice. So Romney is socialist, like 0, and since the RNC said pee on off, the super, uber, special, indy/windy types will actually take their ball/vote and give it away to an actual marxist POS? Because love of self in the spirit of individualness is nocompromising to the point of insanity? Woo pauljohnsonbarr. woo.

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:53pm

    Social issues, big government, vague promises that will never be kept and amendments that will never be passed. A supermajority amendment for taxes? Democrats will never let that through. It’s easy to promise the sky when you have no intention of keeping it.

    Looks like the RNC learned well from the Democrats.

    Report Post »  
    • Amarilloan
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:05pm

      Quite true. The platform does not have authority to any in the party. I’ve never seen any platform held to its entirety..

      Report Post »  
  • BenRayner
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:42pm

    I’ll add my vote to endorsing that platform.

    Rather refreshing.

    Report Post » BenRayner  
    • inblack
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:46pm

      “The party backs constitutional amendments to balance the federal budget”?

      Not without cutting defense spending – otherwise it is just a lie.

      Report Post »  
  • TROLLMONGER
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:41pm

    Republicans are all about the american dream, if your already born rich.

    Report Post » TROLLMONGER  
    • littleberry
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:57pm

      We were promised equal opportunity, not equal results. God give us our rights, not government. My wife and I are well off today because we worked hard all our life, not because we were born rich. We had nothing when we married 54 years ago. Raised three children and educated them.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:01pm

      LITTLEBERRY, I congratulate as well as salute you and your family. Sorry, but TROLLMONGER is too well indoctrinated to understand.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:03pm

      I wouldn’t call myself rich but I am well off. Early retirement, I have enough money to play with. Did it all myself; I built that. I am sure many in here can say the same. Love this country, love the chance it gives to anyone willing to get off his ass and make the effort. Hate what it is becoming under Obama and his entitlement dream. Want to see it get back to good old capitalism, the system that people from all over the world risked their lives to come to this country to be a part of.

      Your argument holds no weight when I can list innumerable examples of people born poor who became successful in this country.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:18pm

      What scares me , Trollmonger, is their talk of rebuilding the American Dream.

      The American Dream is fine. The American Self-Made Man is alive and well!

      I don’t want the American Dream
      Downsized or
      Privatized.

      Those are the only two solutions the Republicans have.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:20pm

      I see this one brought out the PaulBot’s and liberal trolls to sneer at American Exceptionalism.
      I say, Hell Yeah to the platform!

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:27pm

      marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:18pm

      What scares me , Trollmonger, is their talk of rebuilding the American Dream.

      The American Dream is fine. The American Self-Made Man is alive and well!
      —————————————————————————————————–
      I mentioned above that I retired early. Know why? The same reasons many other businesses are closing their doors. You should try to START a business in this climate. No, the self-made man is NOT alive and well, he is a dying breed. That is not opinion, it is fact. You only have to open your eyes and look around you.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:56pm

      Trolltrainer. If you listened to the roll call of the state recording their presidential nomination votes you would have heard how great America is doing.

      These delegates don’t believe the doom and gloom

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:08pm

      I watched the entire delegate count and heard noting positive about business in any state.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:39am

      You must have been watching with the sound down or your fingers in your ears. All the states said how great they were, how their business climates were good and how their employment rates were up.

      The speeches before the roll call all had a similar theme too.

      Nary a peep about hard times.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • WindyDualism
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:13am

      MBE
      With the caveat that the R was now in there doing their utmost best to reverse the 0 influance. Really, I laugh and mock you constantly, but are you really quite that dense? It wasn’t a party of socialists, it wasn’t a convention of LGBLT CAIR members looking for dates. Really, you thought honor was being bestowed upon the current regime, by reps in states with the affixed R for what exactly?

      Report Post »  
    • grayling646
      Posted on August 31, 2012 at 5:11am

      @ mary

      Just what is your idea of the American Dream? Your comment about it is strange to say the least.

      Report Post »  
  • OregonSteelhead
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:40pm

    I fear that if the polls show that Obama might lose there will be a false flag attack of some sort so He can declare Martial Law and postpone any/all elections. I don’t put anything past this guy. What a POS

    Report Post »  
  • marybethelizabeth
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:34pm

    How embarrassing. Boehner and the Convention Chair are both drunk. So was some other guy.

    The drink wear off and the guilty conscious remains.

    Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:44pm

      You would know! ;-)

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:59pm

      TROLLTRAINER, Good one, and most likely very true. That would explain so many of her other posts.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:01pm

      It’s pretty obvious, the way they were slurring their words and unable to pronounce simple ones.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:08pm

      RJJinGadsden

      I don’t drink or use drugs, but that woman who in the Northern Exposure TV show was under the influence of something.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:12am

      MARYBETHELIZABETH, Then good for you, and I sincerely mean that. Sorry, I missed Janine Turner while I was going through the channels. Will look for a video and check it out though.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:31am

      MARYBETHELIZABETH, Did find a video online. Without making excuses for her, I’d say that she is extremely tired, mildly intoxicated with alcohol, or a bit of both. I tend to lean more to the 2nd or 3rd choices. Before you try to tell me that I am not something of an expert regarding intoxicated persons, I have a number of diplomas that say differently.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • Individualism
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:30pm

    4 more years.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:38pm

      You don’t have 4 more years! Romney is going to win and he will kill you. You said so yourself.

      It was SO nice knowing you. :-)

      Report Post »  
    • Individualism
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:49pm

      he will lose by a landslide Obama leads in all swing states and in electoral vote polls holds 290. Romney and his national socialist ideology are not welcomed in this country.

      Report Post » Individualism  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:09pm

      Not what the polls I see are saying, but why bother arguing? Romney may indeed lose. That remains to be seen. I don’t think so though, I think he will win. Maybe not a “landslide” but Romney will take this election and the house will remain Republican. The Senate? I am hesitant on that question.

      You better vote Obama, he is going to need your vote!

      Report Post »  
  • Liberty 4x4
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:26pm

    Platforms are made to be broken…especially by RINOs.

    Report Post » Liberty 4x4  
    • nobummer12
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:15pm

      Exactly.Anyone who believes it is part of the problem. sheeple.

      Report Post » nobummer12  
  • papakono
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:25pm

    11. Tax should be shared equally by all. A flat tax of 15% no matter how much you make. An additional of 10% of those making 1 million or more, will be collected until the debt is paid off. Any surplus goes to the debt.
    12. No more foreign aid, til our house is in order, except those that are proven to be our allies, Israel, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, Poland, Germany, and a few others.
    13. Rescind the order that foreign leaders can not be assassinated, kill North Korea‘s and Iran’s leaders immediately.
    14. No more mosque’s will be built in the U.S. until an equal number of church‘s and synagogue’s are built in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and people are free to attend them.
    15. Declare abortion to be what it is. Murder.
    16. Equal justice for all. Rich, poor, black, white, green.
    17. Glenn Beck history classes for all schools.
    18. Dennis Prager’s books be required reading at all schools.

    God bless this great nation, as we try to do the best we can.

    Report Post »  
    • MotherGoose
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:36pm

      19. The US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US – no more treaties with petty dictators – no on our soil, not on our dime.

      Report Post »  
    • ocrick
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:10pm

      You are one lost Phony Christian GOPinhead loser.

      Report Post »  
    • constitutionisbest4all
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:08pm

      try this on

      11. Tax should be shared equally by all. A flat tax of 15% no matter how much you make. An additional of 10%.will be collected until the debt is paid off. Any surplus goes to the debt.
      12. No more foreign aid, til our house is in order, . 13. Rescind the order that foreign leaders can not be assassinated,..
      14. No more mosque’s will be built in the U.S. until an equal number of church‘s and synagogue’s are built in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and people are free to attend them.
      15. Declare abortion to be what it is. Murder.
      16. Equal justice for all. Rich, poor, black, white, green.
      17. Glenn Beck history classes for all schools.
      18. Dennis Prager’s books be required reading at all schools.

      Report Post »  
  • papakono
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:24pm

    This is my platform for the next President of the United States to do.
    1. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
    2. Declare war on Islamic Extremists. This includes some very harsh punishments when caught, and not killed. No korans, no mats , no playtime, and only pig to eat. If you die, you will be buried with a pig.
    3. Make the entire southern border (10 miles deep)a military base. You will be shot if found on that base. Move existing bases to those area’s.
    4.Cut all federal employees salaries by 33%. Cut all politician’s salaries by 75%. Cut all pensions of both these groups by 50%
    5. Drill here, drill now. Land and sea.
    6. Build 200 new nuclear power plants, only U.S. employees ,equipment, and supplies will be used.
    7. Get the federal gov. out of all education. (except items 17. & 18 below)
    8. Declare all people equal. Any group that is for one race,should be disbanded or jailed. Goodbye black caucas, la raza, black panthers, kkk, BET and any org. that caters to color.
    9. Any illegal who turn’s in his employer, and that employer is found guilty, shall be given instant citizenship. Jobs dry up immediately.
    10. A bounty of $100.00 for each illegal alien caught and brought to the southern border. I hear the buses warming up.

    Report Post »  
  • phrogdriver
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:23pm

    I don‘t’ see anything I disagree with. A few things could go a little further, but if we could really just do this, I would be exstatic.

    Report Post » phrogdriver  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:55pm

      Thoroughly had my support by the time I got to the 2nd Amendment portion. But, I have to agree with you that more can be done. Actually find this more impressive than I had expected.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • trolltrainer
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:22pm

    Now…If we could only elect good, honest people that will uphold this platform…

    But that is another matter, isn’t it?

    Report Post »  
    • A.D.Hominem
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:31pm

      No, Trolltrainer, I wouldn’t call that “another matter”, but a “dream?” Most certainly. Gotta start somewhere.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:31pm

      I don’t think that animal exists any longer. I just watched Valkyrie today (with the stated comment that I very much don’t like Tom Cruise). Notwithstanding, one line struck me….. It went something like “God told Abraham He would spare Sodom & Gomorrah for 10 virtuous men. Perhaps God only needed one good man in Germany.”

      Can honest, good men even get elected in this country any longer? I seriously question Romney even though I know he is better than 0bama. But, Ryan will be the one who will most disappoint me if he strays from who we think he is.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:42pm

      I agree copatriots. Romney is a politician, I do not expect much from him. I respect Ryan, I think he will stay true, at least to his principles…for what that is worth…

      There are some good ones, and I may not agree fully with many of them but at least they stand for what they believe and do what they feel is right for the country. THAT is all I can ask of any man.

      Report Post »  
  • watersRpeople
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:21pm

    Wah, wah, wah……….They want to possibly tax me at 75% and I‘m so greedy I’ll just keep on going like the Energizer Bunny wahhhhh. But on the other hand we’re so stupid we will hand the win to Obama.

    Report Post »  
  • watersRpeople
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:19pm

    Am I the only one who can’t stand looking at John Boehner?

    Report Post »  
  • watersRpeople
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:19pm

    Here‘s what’s in it – An Obama win.

    Report Post »  
  • MODEL82A1
    Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:17pm

    Attempted thread Hijacking by Paulbots in… Three, Two, One……

    Report Post » MODEL82A1  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:37pm

      Screw Ron Paul supporters… each and every Obama enabling one. Ron Paul AND his supporters got EXACTLY what they DESERVED today.

      “BLOWBACK” … THIS is what it is called…. how do you like US now?

      Answer: Exactly the same way as before… you didn’t. So when you get right down to the bottom line… screw Ron Paul and his Obama enabling supporters. You didn‘t want US and WE don’t need you.

      You and your anti-American, enemy endorsing, traitor endorsing, Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden/Obama and Rearend Wright parroting Messiah just got some well deserved “BLOWBACK” for the BS HE and YOU have been pulling for the last 8 years… culminating with the election of Obama until now. You miscreants and malcontents thought you were going to game the system and the system just slapped you down for your nonsense.

      This isn’t a repudiation of the Tea Party Movement, or Grass Roots Movements in general… this was a repudiation of Ron Paul and his supporters plain and simple… AND… HE and you DESERVED what HE and YOU got.

      Now go toss your vote to Obama like you planned on. You have been zeroed-out anyways for a number of reasons.

      Oh and btw… I thought it very funny today that you (Paul Delegates) were relegated to the cheap outer perimeter seats. Smart move by one and all.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • mrsuperpat
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:29pm

      Nice copy paste TIME-2-TROLL. The taxes platform sounds good but people like you actually believe Romney would change the Progressive tax redistribution scheme? The only reason their is a hint of conservatism in this Platform is because of the Ron Paul people. Certainly not from the like of the Baby boomer bluehairs that continually foist their ignorance upon this country. Romney will never adhere to any of these. And if he ever gets a DEMO congress he will gladly fold like cheap Walmart lawn chair. USA>>>USA>>>USA>>>

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:09pm

      PAT. Lmao… yeah, I copied then pasted my comment from another topic. You are one “individually” observant fella’ !! You get a Ron Paul chachki ! How about a Ron Paul Eyebrow Toupee ??

      I credit the Tea Party and Conservatives (Ron Paul didn’t get that backing… OR that vote) for getting behind Romney and the addition of Paul Ryan to the ticket to help get us in the direction we need to go and injecting positives into his platform. I‘m hoping Romney is smart enough not to bite the hand that’s feeding him (the GOP voter). We’ll see… I‘m thinking he’s smart enough.

      That being said… Ron Paul is NOT the face of Tea Party (regardless of what Paul and company would like people to believe) and Ron Paul is certainly NOT a Conservative except on a few fiscal issues (you know… that broken clock thing). I will give Paul that little bit of credit for pushing the discussion forward… but that’s where his influence ends.

      I give Ron Paul supporters no credit at all for anything except for enabling Obama in ‘08 and attempting that again in ’12.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love