Posts: 22397
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 12:42 PM            

---

I admit, I was worried about Romney until the debate. He handed Obama his @ss on a platter. Obama's lying BS was put on display, while Romney had real answers. For the first time, we saw the clear distinction and differences betwen the two. The look on Obama's face whenever Romney mentioned the $90 billion in green energy wasted by Obama was priceless! Romney was also quite clear about how bad Obamacare is and how it takes away money from Medicare. Busted!

IP: Logged

Posts: 9138
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 01:25 PM            

---

yes and we were treated to the truth about romney's plan, which is to make it LOOK LIKE he is reducing taxes, while taking away deductions in such a way that you will end up paying MORE.

i am so glad everyone has the media to interpret the debate for them. we wouldn't want to have to make up our own minds, now would we?

all of a sudden the folks who have been "sheep and ploys for the left" are being lauded as super critics...

i give up on you lot. romney showed himself to be smart, competent, and nasty and selfish as all get out.

gemini my buttinsky. he is a pisces with gem rising, who appears to be smart and is articulate...and has spent months showing EXACTLY who he is; a liar who will go with whatever flow seems strongest.

NORQUIST PEGGED ROMNEY MANY MONTHS AGO AS THE PERFECT SIGNING HAND FOR A CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO BE THE ONLY BRANCH OF GOVT THAT MATTERS.

the fact that they both talked about how THEY were going to rearrange your taxes...CONGRESS is the only body allowed to set taxes and spend money. and we have seen what the republicans will do when they have enough bodies in congress. the house has sat on its heels for two years and the senate has been allowing itself to be stalled by ridiculous filibusters they could have avoided by changing the rules...

vote for some decent congress/senate members and let's see if THAT makes a difference.

IP: Logged

Posts: 22397
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 02:32 PM            

---

Obama didn't have anyone to cover for him. He was called on his record, which is dismal. I am now firmly convinced that Romney will win the election. I like how Romney mentioned that some of that $90 billion to failed and bankrupt green energy companies went to Obama's financial supporters.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Posts: 6898
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 03:06 PM            

---

Frankly, I was surprised to see people here talking about Obama's lies.

I personally didn't watch the debate last night. I've missed a couple straight weeks of improv, so I was anxious to get back.

The clearest problem to me from what I've read of the debate is that while Obama's been faulted for not characterizing Romney's tax plan correctly, ALL of the fact checkers are forced to admit that there aren't sufficient details for either side to be making claims about Romney's tax plan. How is it that a Republican can't get specific on his tax plan...especially considering that tax plans have been central to Republican Presidential contenders for all of modern history?

IP: Logged

Posts: 6898
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 03:06 PM            

---

Double post

Here's the factcheck.org analysis. Note the bit on "death panels," Jwhop. http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

"Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator."

IP: Logged

Posts: 37704
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted October 04, 2012 03:06 PM            

---

I hope so, Randall!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

Posts: 4087
From:
Registered: Oct 2011

posted October 04, 2012 03:27 PM            

---

AcousticGod,

His plan is to bring down the 28% middle income bracket to 20%, and bring down the 35% top bracket to 23-25%.

In return, he wants to limit aggregate Schedule A deductions to $17K. That will make the true middle class happier because they only use the standardized deduction, which will be raised.

The upper middle class, meaning the white collar folks with family income between $150K to $250K will take a swift kick to their testicles. The lower brackets will be consolidated around a larger 8% to 10% rate.

The rich will be rich regardless of who does what. As usual, the rest take it up the rear.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1918
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 04, 2012 09:36 PM            

---

Hi all, just passing by, saw the news from lexx and stopped in GU cause the debate made the headlines in France.
I didn't watch it but I wondered, did they talk about abortion, gay rights, and how they plan to help poor and middle class people to get free healthcare like in europe? (although healthcare is free for everyone, regardless of the income)
Thanks.

IP: Logged

Posts: 37704
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted October 04, 2012 10:40 PM            

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I admit, I was worried about Romney until the debate. He handed Obama his @ss on a platter. Obama's lying BS was put on display, while Romney had real answers. For the first time, we saw the clear distinction and differences betwen the two. The look on Obama's face whenever Romney mentioned the $90 billion in green energy wasted by Obama was priceless! Romney was also quite clear about how bad Obamacare is and how it takes away money from Medicare. Busted!

---

I was worried, too. I was afraid O'Bomber would be a weenie like McCain. Thank God, he was not!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

Posts: 8766
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 12:58 AM            

---

@YTA

You're not completely off since Romney's Gemini Asc, conj Gem NN in H1. Alongside the classic Uranus in Gemini (also H1) which is a placement this country just adores in its leaders. It also loves Leo, the sign of its NN, and Libra placements.

IP: Logged

Posts: 8766
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 01:35 AM            

---

@pire

Abortion, no. Gay rights, no. But from 4 yrs ago, Obama late in the election was pressed again and again on the abortion issue and remained vague, but his general stance on the matter is basically as a last resort. No to free healthcare, the difference would be Romney generally wants to shift the control to the states. Obama would keep Obamacare. The poor, not all but many, are currently covered under the Medicaid program. Some pay co-pays, but there are restrictions, for example I believe it stopped covering dental for adults. Since the economy tanked the social net programs for the poor, aside from food stamps (which is federally funded save for admin costs), have been hit with reductions and downsized to a certain extent. Medicaid/Medicare receive matches from the govt to what the state will pour into it generally based on the economy of the individual states. The thing with entitlement programs, though, is that many doctors won't see patients who are covered by those programs, so you wonder what sort of care they're receiving. And certain poor people will slip through all of these programs, including Obamacare. But Medicaid/Medicare, I would imagine, is not like the free healthcare in Europe. Obamacare was aimed, in part, at many people who could afford to feed themselves, therefore they didn't qualify for Medicaid, but they also couldn't afford health insurance out of pocket.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2656
From: nevada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 03:45 AM            

---

pire! hello, it's good to see you, stay awhile we've missed you.

I love Al Gore
seriously, quit laughing

Jwhop

------------------

"For all those who believe, expect a miracle.”
Linda Goodman 1925-1995

IP: Logged

Posts: 4087
From:
Registered: Oct 2011

posted October 05, 2012 08:31 AM            

---

The Social Issues debate is the third debate.

up next in a few days is the foreign policy debate, to be held Town-Hall style in the suburbs of New York. It's the congressional district of Peter King, Chairman of the Honeland Security Committee. It's going to be most interesting. The elimination of OBL vs. Benghazi and the "road bumps."

Anyway, as far as social issues go, it is blatantly obvious where each candidate stands. Don't expect the Prez to waiver on his commitment to pro choice and his full support of equal gay rights and somewhat uneasy full support of gay marriage. Don't expect Romney to waiver on his commitment to absolutely no abortions and his somewhat uneasy support of equal gay rights with no marriage rights. What's there to debate about that???

IP: Logged

Posts: 6898
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 12:14 PM            

---

quote:

---

Alongside the classic Uranus in Gemini (also H1) which is a placement this country just adores in its leaders.

---

Is this true? Even despite it being a generational planet?

IP: Logged

Posts: 9138
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 02:25 PM            

---

AG - several of our last presidents were 40s boomers with uranus in gemini..bush and clinton, for instance, obama has it in late leo i believe. so it is a generational thing not an emotional one, i think.

i listened to some of the debate on the radio. interesting difference, i couldn't SEE romney smirking and didn't know that obama was looking down taking notes, which some people seem to think was a dire mistake.

on the balance, a couple of days later, romney did a major uturn on many of his stances of the last months, obama declined to get nasty with the 47% thing, and the pundits are just milking it all for all its worth.

those who want john wayne for president may think romney ran away with it, but i think he just had a good night and he's excellent at making a sales pitch; not the same as being good for the long haul.

IP: Logged

Posts: 9138
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 02:26 PM            

---

to quote FDR decades ago, "there are NO ACCIDENTS in politics. if it happens you can be sure it was planned..."

IP: Logged

Posts: 8766
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 04:35 PM            

---

Generational and only for about 7 yrs but when their age group is a contender vs another they tend to be picked, esp when angular or conj NN, of course the whole thing is more complex than this small factor. 7/4/1776 chart had Uranus in Gem too (i use that date). Don't mean to sidetrack the topic. But for ref bold have Uranus in Gem:
Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin (08) ... Biden Gem Uranus conj Dsc / nothing from losing party
Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards (04) ... Bush Gem Uranus conj Gem NN / Kerry's Gem Uranus has no conj
Bush/Cheney vs. Gore/Lieberman (00) ... Bush Gem Uranus conj Gem NN / Gore's Gem Uranus has no conj
Clinton/Gore vs. Dole/Kemp (96) ... Clinton Gem Uranus conj Gem NN / nothing from losing party
Clinton/Gore vs. Bush/Quayle (92) ... Clinton Gem Uranus conj Gem NN / Quayle Gem NN conj Asc & Gem Uranus H1.
Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Bentsen (88) ... Quayle Gem NN conj Asc & Gem Uranus H1 / nothing from losing party
(1932-1984 campaigns, no candidates at election time with Uranus in Gem)
Hoover/Curtis vs. Smith/Robinson (1928) ... Curtis no tob / nothing from losing party
(1920-1924 campaigns, no candidates at election time with Uranus in Gem)
Wilson/Marshall vs. Hughes/Fairbanks (1916) ... nothing from winning party / Hughes had no conj to his Gem Uranus
Wilson/Marshall vs. Roosevelt/Johnson vs. Taft/Butler vs. Debs/Seidel (1912) ... nothing from winning party / Roosevelt had no conj to his Gem Uranus / Butler & Seidel tob unknown
*haven't looked prior to above year.

Not to use this as a single predictor, it's just one factor (out of a few so far) that I noticed when I started comparing U.S. chart to the candidates (which I'm not done with either, it's v.time consuming). For current, Biden Gem Uranus conj Dsc / Romney is like Quayle with early Gem Asc conj Gem NN w. Gem Uranus in H1 (born same yr). Neither Ryan nor Obama have it so it'll likely be dying out again soon, but not completely just yet. I'd say this is a long run for a generational placement since it's been going since '88 (24 yrs) prominent for the winning party, and when both parties have it the one who has the stronger conj tends to be a member of the winning party. Uranus was last in Gem from roughly 5/15/42-8/29/48.

IP: Logged

Posts: 2077
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 10:11 PM            

---

ALL of the pundits were talking about demeanor & body language. Not the issues, not Mr etchesketch on reload, not how Romney told 27 myths on 38 minutes.

Even Chris Mathews was foaming like a potato head.

Coal will never be clean.

------------------
"I'm curious to see if the arrival of Mercury in Dec. 2012 to its retrograde point trining Uranus stationing direct the same day with Saturn in Scorpio sextiling Pluto in Cap will uncover any shennanigans about the election.

Making one's own conclusions and paying attention is very good advice. Nine of the swing states have GOP governors who also have electronic voting for their populace. That means no paper trails. Many of those machines are manufactured by Romney donors. Interesting times."

IP: Logged

Posts: 6898
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 05, 2012 10:47 PM            

---

Interesting Lonake.

My Ascendant is also in the early degrees of Gemini (2nd). My Uranus is far off in another Air sign, Libra (22), trining my Saturn in Gemini (15).

Interesting that both Obama and Romney have their Suns near angles in the chart (I assume). Obama's Sun near the Descendant makes him have an "others" focus, while Romney has his Sun near the MC for a career focus.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4087
From:
Registered: Oct 2011

posted October 05, 2012 11:01 PM            

---

And solar and wind do not make economic sense.

IP: Logged

Posts: 6132
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2012 11:14 AM            

---

Wind and Solar is and always was a pipe dream as a reliable broad based replacement for coal, oil and natural gas fired electric production.

The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. A fact any 5th grader could have told our brain-dead prez and the tree-hugger morons he's surrounded himself with.

Add to that the uncompetitive costs of Wind and Solar power and you have cracked the code on O'Bomber's statement..."I will skyrocket your electricity rates".

He's working hard on doing exactly that. Just wait until all those coal fired electric production plants go offline. Oh, and they are already scheduled to go offline.

In O'Bomber's meddling little Marxist mind, it's an absolute necessity to get electric rates way, way, way up...so wind and solar can be competitive.

But wind and solar can't possibly replace the 49% of electric power currently produced by coal anytime soon, and I mean many years.

So guess what tree huggers and usual suspects?

If O'Bomber gets his way...it's lights out babies. Rationing and rolling blackouts.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1918
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2012 04:59 PM            

---

thank you guys for the answers

thank you lalalinda

IP: Logged

Posts: 9138
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2012 05:18 PM            

---

solar and wind "myths"? been to/seen photos of germany lately? they have decided that longterm BOTH are more cost efficient and effective than nuclear.

and holland has been using wind power for centuries!

IP: Logged

Posts: 37704
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted October 06, 2012 06:32 PM            

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
solar and wind "myths"? been to/seen photos of germany lately? they have decided that longterm BOTH are more cost efficient and effective than nuclear.

and holland has been using wind power for centuries!

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

Posts: 6132
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 06, 2012 09:37 PM            

---

There's no possibility wind or solar or wind and solar will ever be as cost effective as nuclear power...not ever.

Further, the only way wind and solar can ever compete with oil, natural gas and coal is to restrict the production and or use of those fossil energy sources to the degree their prices skyrocket. Which is exactly what O'Bomber is trying to do.
lalalinda

IP: Logged