The Goat Pen

Owlman wrote:There are very few Reagan Democrats. They for the most part became Republican. There are a lot more independents now though.

Today's independent = 1980's Reagan Democrat

Owlman wrote:As for Romney and the tea party: let's see, Romney is

pro - abortion rights = check
pro - gay rights = check

Wrong on both. He absolutely , positively, does not believe in gay marriage. NFW. Again, "his veto counted for nothing." Get used to that because when you see all the vetoes he will mention in the debates, you are not going to believe how powerless he was as a Republican Governor in Massachusetts. (The Super-Majority of Dem state reps run Massachusetts. What they say, goes.)

Owlman wrote:pro - individual mandate = check

(at least that's what he said when he ran for the Senate)

It's a long time since 1994 and that was for a Massachusetts Senate seat. You don't think for a second that he was EVER pro-choice, do you? You don't actually think he would ever violate the 10th Amendment and sign any bill for a Federal Insurance mandate do you?

First off, read the 10th Amendment.

Second, while he wasn't pro gay marriage, he did say he supported civil unions, which to conservative Christians is the same thing.

And yes, he said he was pro-choice.

It's his flipping that makes people on the right leary of him. If you can't acknowledge that he's flipped on multiple occasions, then you aren't in reality land.

What???????

Santorum: McCain doesn't understand interrogation


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110517/ap_ ... epublicans

Owlman wrote:There are very few Reagan Democrats. They for the most part became Republican. There are a lot more independents now though.

As for Romney and the tea party: let's see, Romney is

pro - abortion rights = check
pro - gay rights = check
pro - individual mandate = check

(at least that's what he said when he ran for the Senate)

pro - magic undies = check

lol

"GET OUT NOW!"


Gingrich lambasted over health care comments


http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket ... e-comments

Owlman wrote:First off, read the 10th Amendment.

The Federal government is bound by the Constitution as to what laws it can make. The state, not so much.

That is Romney's point. The Constitution says that the Fed can't make a law to force you to buy ANYTHING.

Owlman wrote:Second, while he wasn't pro gay marriage, he did say he supported civil unions, which to conservative Christians is the same thing.

Two men (regardless of their sexual orientation) can own property together be it a house, a business, or what-have-you. Two men sharing property and/or living together has always been lawful. You can call that a "civil union" if you'd like. That is what Mitt would call it. It doesn't make any difference what conservative Christians think of that arrangement. Conservative Christians do NOT like homosexuality. Period. End of story. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's that simple. So no matter what laws we create in this country, conservative Christians are not going to accept anything that homosexual men want to do that will enable their existence to be mainstream.

Owlman wrote:And yes, he said he was pro-choice.

To win a Senate seat in 1994. That is it. He NEVER-EVER supported abortion. Mitt was the LDS Stake President in Belmont Massachusetts. You don't get to be that and be Pro-Choice.

Owlman wrote:It's his flipping that makes people on the right leary of him. If you can't acknowledge that he's flipped on multiple occasions, then you aren't in reality land.

The reality is he could veto things to his heart's content, and it wouldn't have mattered. He isn't "flipping" on the Massachusetts health care mandate. Would you rather he did?

The Federal government is bound by the Constitution as to what laws it can make. The state, not so much.

Nope. what it actually says is: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution says that the Fed can't make a law to force you to buy ANYTHING.

And where does the Constitution say that?

And yes, he said he was pro-choice.

To win a Senate seat in 1994.

Thanks for agreeing.

Yes, other than the fact that he is despised by the pro-life, pro-2A, anti-government-run health care (i.e. the Tea Party), Romney is a lock for the nomination.

I will concede that Romney is and ever shall be beloved by the country club Republicans and the Mormons. So he will carry Beacon Hill, Wall Street, the Hamptons, and Utah. But that's about it. Moreover, I fully expect the media will fawn all over him because he's precisely the kind of Republican they want to run against. But in the end, his multiple stances on key issues will scuttle him in the primaries.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Although I don't like Romney and do indeed think of him as a RINO just like McCain his health plan doesn't take opramacare of the table.

A state mandate is completely different than a federal mandate. A federal mandate is unconstitutional, a state mandate depends on the constitution of each state. Huge difference.

I get the impression that most tea partiers object to Obamacare because they think it's socialism/communism, not because they think it's unconstitutional. I doubt all objections would be dropped if their home states enacted the exact same plan.

Romney said he was pro-choice. But he was only lying in order to win back in '94. People will understand!

And yeah Romneycare is virtually the same thing as Obamacare, but it's not unconstitutional, which makes that understandable too. Plus he needed to stay in power in a liberal state. He's actually extremely conservative. He just hid those qualities in order to win and stay in office. LEADERSHIP

flip flops

He NEVER-EVER supported abortion.

Other than when when he passionately said he supported abortion:





You may say he was lying just to get elected. I would agree with you on that. But then comes the obvious question: if he was lying to elected then, how do you know he is not lying to get elected now?

Willingness to lie about matters that are of extreme importance to many people just to get elected may be perfectly acceptable in Romney's and IB's world. But that is precisely the kind of behavior most voters despise in politicians.

You don't actually think he would ever violate the 10th Amendment and sign any bill for a Federal Insurance mandate do you?

Yes I absolutely do. If he was okay with the state forcing citizens to buy insurance, then he is almost certainly okay with the feds forcing citizens to buy insurance.

::sigh::

States force people to buy insurance all the time. My state makes me buy liability insurance, and it also makes me buy workers compensation for my employees. And as of March 1st of this year, it was mandated that I had to buy WC for myself as well. (thanks be to you, our new "less-government" Republican legislature)

So I guess if Mitt is the nominee I can vote for a fullblown bedwetter or a semi-bedwetter. sheesh! Where do they stand on the economy and dead arabs?

BOJ

What kind of practice are you going to have. My favorite doctor was an Indian, Mukergee, or something like that. A little guy, surgeon, but he died of cancer a couple of years ago. He used to call me Mr. Mike. Heh, I loved it. Anyway my doctor now is Fischer. He likes to talk with a Gerrman accent and wear UT clothes but I know he's from Arkansas. I like the guy but he put me on some kind of Berkely program that cost me 500 bucks out of pocket and the only thing thats wrong with me is my "good" cholesteol (sp) is low. Manchester isn't that far away.

IB also was a heavy investor in HD-DVD in their battle with BlueRay.

Anyone that rides a HD is alright in my book.

And yeah Romneycare is virtually the same thing as Obamacare, but it's not unconstitutional, which makes that understandable too. Plus he needed to stay in power in a liberal state. He's actually extremely conservative. He just hid those qualities in order to win and stay in office.


What makes Romney different from say.....candidate Obammer anndddd...President Obammer? Campaign/rhetoric for the base....go to the center/rhetoric in office.

a politician that lies about his core beliefs in order to get elected or stay in office? obviously this is the first time that's happened. I'm shocked.