NHGOP: TIME TO CHANGE DIRECTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

 Kimball:  Voters in the Granite State know that the 2012 election will be about one thing, the economy, and it is time to change direction

CONCORD – Today, Jack Kimball, Chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, hosted a press conference to highlight the Republican National Committee’s national cable buy titled “Change Direction,” and to let New Hampshire voters know that the 2012 election will be about one thing – the economy.
 
“This ad from the RNC highlights something that many already know: President’ Obama’s economic policies have been a complete failure.  From New Hampshire to Florida and across to California, each state is struggling because of the President’s extreme policies,” said Chairman Kimball.
 
“Voters in the Granite State know that the 2012 election will be about one thing, the economy, and it is time to change direction because we can’t afford another year, let alone another term of the Obama economy.”
 
The ad is part of an initiative aimed at highlighting President Obama’s failure on the economy.  It is part of a four week plan that begins with a national cable buy and is later highlighted in battleground states like New Hampshire over the next three weeks.

Comments

[Sensible]

I thought the election was going to be all about making sure that women don't have birth control. WTF - are we off message????

[C. dog]

Gee Sensible –
I wasn't aware the DNC fashion police dictated that chastity belts were now out of style. WTF, indeed!
– C. dog holds the key to guv luv

[Richard Olson Jr.]

"Sensible" yeah, there's Irony in that pseudonym

[Troll]

"Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester added that he opposed funding for birth control and condoms altogether.
"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he told the Concord Monitor last week."

If you want to reduce welfare, maybe helping poor people to NOT HAVE BABIES would be a great start. People are going to have sex, birth control or not. So all that's happened here is more poor people will have more babies that no one wants to pay for. Just goes to show how out of touch with reality some of these Republicans can be.

[C. dog]

Hey Troll –
Snip, snip goes the scalpel, down, down goes the birthrate among the undesirables; Democrat Margaret Sanger.
– C. dog

[Troll]

How can you compare the two? One is about giving poor people the option to not have kids that they don't want and that they can't afford. The other is some form of Mengele style eugenics. I'm certainly not advocating the government tell anyone that they can or cannot have kids. That is for a power higher than them. But to think that people will forego having sex because they MIGHT get pregnant is very foolish and out of touch. Look, I know you conservatives are money centric (profits uber alles!) so think of this as an investment. You can invest a couple bucks now in birth control and then, when people don't have unwanted kids, you reap the rewards of lower welfare, cheaper schools and a myriad of other bonuses. It's a win-win for everyone. People who can't afford food are NOT going to spend their meager resources on birth control but it is in all of our interests to help them get it.

[C. dog]

You amuse me, Troll. I, a conservative? Keep guessing. Anyway, I was pulling your leg about good ol' Margaret the Uber Socialist ... or was she a fascist? My point is, if one is begging for birth control, you don't gets to decide which one they give ya. And for my money, a snip is way more cost-effective than thin latex wrap-around. Just ask Chairman Mao!

Now for the financing side of the equation. Wouldn't this be better done via charity? I would gladly fork over big coin knowing fewer miscreants were breeding in my stomping grounds. If is saves just one child, then it's worth it, Right Troll?
– C. dog raises the knife to cut to the truth

[Troll]

While I can agree that, from an economic stand point, sterilization is much more effective you would be on very shaky grounds from an ethical point of view. I guess I look at the situation differently. While you might think that paying for someone else's birth control is doing them a favor, I look at it like doing myself a solid. If people who can't afford to have babies stop having babies, that would be a boon for all of us.

As far as the financing goes, I have to disagree with you. Maybe in a utopian society, charities would deal with these social issues. But we don't live in that type of environment and I feel that it is the responsibility of a society to care for the less fortunate. Counting on the largess of my fellow man makes me queasy. The only time people are good and responsible citizens is when their arms are twisted. Call me cynical but that's been my experience. Also, during tough economic times like now, charitable donations plummet and yet there are more people in need of those funds and services those funds pay for. To tell people in need "tough luck maybe your neighbors can help" is a dereliction of duty, in my opinion.

[Rowland]

Ethical point of view? Seriously?

[Rowland]

Without personal responsibility there is no such thing as ethics.

[Troll]

True but someone else's lack of personal resposibility has absolutely no effect on my ethics. What is right and wrong to me should not change based on their actions.

[GreyGhost]

Quote from Troll: "I feel that it is the responsibility of a society to care for the less fortunate."

Based on your above quote, I am going to assume that you feel it is right to impose that view on all those you would deem to be the "fortunate" members of society, irregardless of what they think.

As this would be dealing in absolutes, I submit that it would also be right if those who felt making contributions to help the "less fortunate" should be voluntary, would impose that view on all others, irregardless of what they think.

[C. dog]

To clarify my position, I was only advocating that people voluntarily fund snip-snips for those voluntarily seeking birth control. That would be both efficient – for those that take the freebie – and ethical. Where you lose me, Troll, is putting a gun to someone's head and making them fork over a packet of Trojans for his pleasure ... and hers. Seems kinda seedy to me, don't you think?

This issue gets admittedly murky when those who don't support their offspring breed away anyway. On the one hand, you have Margaret Sanger, on the other you have trailer encampments and ghettoes. But those are only recent developments. Naked apes did not always socialize like urban rats. Maybe the answer lyes in society?
– C. dog goes tribal on tom-toms