PDA

View Full Version : 100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama



TrojanFin
09-27-2012, 07:04 AM
Hugh Hewitt gives his reasons for why he supports Romney and not Obama.


100 Reasons - Hour 1 (http://tinyurl.com/8uepql9)
100 Reasons - Hour 2 (http://tinyurl.com/98w2ltx)
100 Reasons - Hour 3 (http://tinyurl.com/8edtn4a)


I have noticed that I am in the minority on this forum. I also notice that several you love to do a lot research regarding reasons that prove Liberal superiority, and Conservatives as inferior. Feel free to address all 100 or just 20 points made on his radio show. I am curious how you could disagree with what is said.

Dolphins9954
09-27-2012, 08:08 AM
3 hours?!?!?!

Can you just sum it up.

Locke
09-27-2012, 12:13 PM
Hugh Hewitt gives his reasons for why he supports Romney and not Obama.


100 Reasons - Hour 1 (http://tinyurl.com/8uepql9)
100 Reasons - Hour 2 (http://tinyurl.com/98w2ltx)
100 Reasons - Hour 3 (http://tinyurl.com/8edtn4a)


I have noticed that I am in the minority on this forum. I also notice that several you love to do a lot research regarding reasons that prove Liberal superiority, and Conservatives as inferior. Feel free to address all 100 or just 20 points made on his radio show. I am curious how you could disagree with what is said.


:confused:

Put up one single quote from anyone on this forum that shows this. Sounds to me like you have an inferiority complex more than anyone else researching their superiority. The issue is you're talking to a group of highly intelligent educated people, who just so happen to be liberal. I think you're mistaking that for something else entirely...

Gonzo
09-27-2012, 12:57 PM
Hugh Hewitt gives his reasons for why he supports Romney and not Obama.


100 Reasons - Hour 1 (http://tinyurl.com/8uepql9)
100 Reasons - Hour 2 (http://tinyurl.com/98w2ltx)
100 Reasons - Hour 3 (http://tinyurl.com/8edtn4a)


I have noticed that I am in the minority on this forum. I also notice that several you love to do a lot research regarding reasons that prove Liberal superiority, and Conservatives as inferior. Feel free to address all 100 or just 20 points made on his radio show. I am curious how you could disagree with what is said.
2 things:

1) What is it with some neo-cons and playing the victim? For a group that always chastises "liberals" for playing the victim, they sure do seem to do it themselves a lot.

2) Is there a written transcript? I'm not giving either side 3 hours of my time to listen to their nasally opinion. Give me a written transcript so I can skip the **** I don't care about and address the issues that matter to me.

Dovahkiin
09-27-2012, 12:59 PM
Can you just sum it up.

Vote for Romney. You're welcome.

TheWalrus
09-27-2012, 02:03 PM
Anyone who needs three hours to make the case against Obama must think he's a pretty good president.

tylerdolphin
09-27-2012, 02:11 PM
tl;dw

Alkahall
09-27-2012, 02:36 PM
All I have to say is do you really want a guy in office that believes he can have many wives in heaven? O wait only the upper level of the 3 levels that he believes in.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

WVDolphan
09-27-2012, 02:43 PM
Only reason you need to not vote for Obama......

1) Poors suck.

tylerdolphin
09-27-2012, 06:05 PM
Only reason you need to not vote for Obama......

1) Poors suck.

That and he's a Kenyan muslim. Use your heads people

Valandui
09-27-2012, 06:24 PM
:confused:

Put up one single quote from anyone on this forum that shows this. Sounds to me like you have an inferiority complex more than anyone else researching their superiority. The issue is you're talking to a group of highly intelligent educated people, who just so happen to be liberal. I think you're mistaking that for something else entirely...
Pretty much. I'm actually a libertarian-leaning conservative and I hate both of these guys.

JackFinfan
09-27-2012, 11:28 PM
Before I clicked on the 1st link, I wondered to myself, How many reasons would I have to go until I find a wrong/dumb/ignorant reason. Turns out not very far. The first reason for Romney, "Romney believes in American Exceptionalism."

The first reason against Obama. Obama wants no part of bipartisan governance.

Wildbill3
09-27-2012, 11:35 PM
sorry. I want my phone. go obama.

Spesh
09-28-2012, 12:23 AM
Before I clicked on the 1st link, I wondered to myself, How many reasons would I have to go until I find a wrong/dumb/ignorant reason. Turns out not very far. The first reason for Romney, "Romney believes in American Exceptionalism."

The first reason against Obama. Obama wants no part of bipartisan governance.

Giving you thanks and some positive rep. If i could, id nominate you for the medal of honor for giving us even a brief insight into the links without me having to click on one.

TrojanFin
09-28-2012, 06:30 AM
Most of you guys are proving my point about being in the minority on this forum. There is very little discourse on any of the topics. I do not feel as though I am "victim" or suffer from an "inferiority complex". It's just that you would think I am Jets fan when posting on here.

I am simply pointing out that these forums have become an echo-chamber for progressive sentiment. The few that don't fall in that category, fall in the apathetic category which likes neither (well you are going to have to vote for one or simply forfeit your right - I guess a write-in is in order).

No candidate is perfect, but seeing as how Progressive politics has done wonders here in my city of Los Angeles and my state California - I can't wait to see the aftermath of a whole country following suit. A whole of associates and friends have been laid off under these regimes (people with college degrees from prestigious). A lot of businesses are leaving. Mayor Villaraigosa, Governor Brown and President Obama don't have the answers. It's become fairly obvious.

I decided to only go over the first 10... many of you will likely lose interest and it likely won't be worth my time to do more than 10. I am looking for counter-examples show how Obama reached across the aisle or took ownership since that seems to be many of the criticisms made below.

1. Romney- “American Exceptionalism”
A proponent of American exceptionalism, Romney has consistently outlined a far tougher approach to the world than Obama has practiced. He has emphasized rewarding traditional allies such as Israel, punishing rather than cultivating difficult nations and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-romney-differ-on-us-exceptionalism/2012/09/26/23a4bcce-07e9-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
2. Romney has integrity/character – attack ads on Romney this election have been weak mainly talking about Bain Capital (like companies never lay people off) and leaving his dog on the roof

3. Turnaround Specialist – see Utah Winter Olympics/ Massachusetts (turned deficit into a surplus)
4. Obama – dismissive and arrogant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/jan-brewer-obama-tarmac_n_1785484.html
(Jan Brewer incident)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDiHX50zT4 (Obama criticizes the Supreme Court)
5. Obama – partisan president – see Obamacare
6. Obama’s distaste of Paul Ryan – Obama’s body language is pretty dismissive of all the facts Ryan throws his way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs (cue 5:25)
7. Obama says “I won” – ie I don’t need to listen to you
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
^ what happened to reaching across the aisle
8. Obama attacks Roman Catholics - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57438959/dolan-white-house-is-strangling-catholic-church/ (Dolan speaks out)
9. Obama doesn’t accept responsibility –
OBAMA: Oh, I think that, you know, as President I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree…
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/24/transcript-obama-on-60-minutes/#ixzz27kzmZLBq
Look up any number of videos blaming Bush, the tea party or Conservative Obstructionists
10. Obama creates strawmen arguments – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Im5zHGLZx0

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
So hopefully I haven't wasted my time in posting this.

JackFinfan
09-28-2012, 10:05 AM
Most of you guys are proving my point about being in the minority on this forum. There is very little discourse on any of the topics. I do not feel as though I am "victim" or suffer from an "inferiority complex". It's just that you would think I am Jets fan when posting on here.

I am simply pointing out that these forums have become an echo-chamber for progressive sentiment. The few that don't fall in that category, fall in the apathetic category which likes neither (well you are going to have to vote for one or simply forfeit your right - I guess a write-in is in order).

No candidate is perfect, but seeing as how Progressive politics has done wonders here in my city of Los Angeles and my state California - I can't wait to see the aftermath of a whole country following suit. A whole of associates and friends have been laid off under these regimes (people with college degrees from prestigious). A lot of businesses are leaving. Mayor Villaraigosa, Governor Brown and President Obama don't have the answers. It's become fairly obvious.

I decided to only go over the first 10... many of you will likely lose interest and it likely won't be worth my time to do more than 10. I am looking for counter-examples show how Obama reached across the aisle or took ownership since that seems to be many of the criticisms made below.

1. Romney- “American Exceptionalism”
A proponent of American exceptionalism, Romney has consistently outlined a far tougher approach to the world than Obama has practiced. He has emphasized rewarding traditional allies such as Israel, punishing rather than cultivating difficult nations and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-romney-differ-on-us-exceptionalism/2012/09/26/23a4bcce-07e9-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
2. Romney has integrity/character – attack ads on Romney this election have been weak mainly talking about Bain Capital (like companies never lay people off) and leaving his dog on the roof

3. Turnaround Specialist – see Utah Winter Olympics/ Massachusetts (turned deficit into a surplus)
4. Obama – dismissive and arrogant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/jan-brewer-obama-tarmac_n_1785484.html
(Jan Brewer incident)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDiHX50zT4 (Obama criticizes the Supreme Court)
5. Obama – partisan president – see Obamacare
6. Obama’s distaste of Paul Ryan – Obama’s body language is pretty dismissive of all the facts Ryan throws his way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs (cue 5:25)
7. Obama says “I won” – ie I don’t need to listen to you
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
^ what happened to reaching across the aisle
8. Obama attacks Roman Catholics - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57438959/dolan-white-house-is-strangling-catholic-church/ (Dolan speaks out)
9. Obama doesn’t accept responsibility –
OBAMA: Oh, I think that, you know, as President I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree…
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/24/transcript-obama-on-60-minutes/#ixzz27kzmZLBq
Look up any number of videos blaming Bush, the tea party or Conservative Obstructionists
10. Obama creates strawmen arguments – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Im5zHGLZx0

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”


So hopefully I haven't wasted my time in posting this.

Before I discuss the first 10, I just wanted to clarify that I will be voting 3rd party this election.

1. I fail to see how embracing a military confrontation with Iran is a reason to vote for Romney.

2. Are you saying that Romney has not attacked Obama in any of his ads? Off the top of my head, Romney ran an ad claiming Obama had eliminated the work for welfare program, even though it was thoroughly debunked that he had not, but instead he gave the states even more power to put such programs in place (something the GOP should be very happy about). Also, Romney has flipped his positions countless times. Is that what you call integrity?

3. I don't know the specifics regarding Massachusetts before and after Romney, so I'll give you this one.

4. This one just makes me laugh. There's a thin line between arrogance and confidence, so I'll leave that one alone. But dismissive?? I can't tell you how many times I heard in the healthcare debates, "I want to hear the Republican ideas, and if they're good I want them included in the bill." That's the complete opposite of dismissive. You do realize there is a difference between disagreeing and being dismissive?

5. You said "see Obamacare." How many Republican amendments are in the Healthcare bill? A gov't mandate was originally whose idea, GOP or Dem? You see right from the start he compromised with the GOP by not proposing a public option. Now you can argue that this reflects Obama being weak rather than Obama wanting to compromise, but you can't say he was partisan. Didn't he hold a discussion in which he invited many members across the aisle and gave them a chance to present their ideas? So he proposes a GOP idea despite campaigning on a more progressive idea (public option), includes GOP amendments (knowing that no Rep will vote for the bill), and then we call him partisan because the GOP refuses to vote for it. Everyone knew that no Republican would vote for the bill from day 1. How that makes Obama partisan is beyond me.

6. Whether or not this is even true, it's a pretty pathetic reason. Are you saying Romney loves every Dem?

7. I've already provided examples of Obama's willingness to listen to the GOP.

8. Roman Catholic Church...maybe, but Roman Catholics, no. Most Catholics ignore the church when it comes to birth control.

9. Even though I think that conservatives have made it their primary goal to obstruct Obama at every turn, I do believe that Obama does not take enough personal responsibility for the current state. Even if it's not your fault, a good leader always takes the blame when things go bad.

10. So are you and the radio host saying that Romney has never created strawmen arguments?

Gonzo
09-28-2012, 10:48 AM
Most of you guys are proving my point about being in the minority on this forum. There is very little discourse on any of the topics. I do not feel as though I am "victim" or suffer from an "inferiority complex". It's just that you would think I am Jets fan when posting on here.

I am simply pointing out that these forums have become an echo-chamber for progressive sentiment. The few that don't fall in that category, fall in the apathetic category which likes neither (well you are going to have to vote for one or simply forfeit your right - I guess a write-in is in order).

No candidate is perfect, but seeing as how Progressive politics has done wonders here in my city of Los Angeles and my state California - I can't wait to see the aftermath of a whole country following suit. A whole of associates and friends have been laid off under these regimes (people with college degrees from prestigious). A lot of businesses are leaving. Mayor Villaraigosa, Governor Brown and President Obama don't have the answers. It's become fairly obvious.

I decided to only go over the first 10... many of you will likely lose interest and it likely won't be worth my time to do more than 10. I am looking for counter-examples show how Obama reached across the aisle or took ownership since that seems to be many of the criticisms made below.

1. Romney- “American Exceptionalism”
A proponent of American exceptionalism, Romney has consistently outlined a far tougher approach to the world than Obama has practiced. He has emphasized rewarding traditional allies such as Israel, punishing rather than cultivating difficult nations and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-romney-differ-on-us-exceptionalism/2012/09/26/23a4bcce-07e9-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
2. Romney has integrity/character – attack ads on Romney this election have been weak mainly talking about Bain Capital (like companies never lay people off) and leaving his dog on the roof

3. Turnaround Specialist – see Utah Winter Olympics/ Massachusetts (turned deficit into a surplus)
4. Obama – dismissive and arrogant
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/jan-brewer-obama-tarmac_n_1785484.html
(Jan Brewer incident)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDiHX50zT4 (Obama criticizes the Supreme Court)
5. Obama – partisan president – see Obamacare
6. Obama’s distaste of Paul Ryan – Obama’s body language is pretty dismissive of all the facts Ryan throws his way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs (cue 5:25)
7. Obama says “I won” – ie I don’t need to listen to you
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
^ what happened to reaching across the aisle
8. Obama attacks Roman Catholics - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57438959/dolan-white-house-is-strangling-catholic-church/ (Dolan speaks out)
9. Obama doesn’t accept responsibility –
OBAMA: Oh, I think that, you know, as President I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree…
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/24/transcript-obama-on-60-minutes/#ixzz27kzmZLBq
Look up any number of videos blaming Bush, the tea party or Conservative Obstructionists
10. Obama creates strawmen arguments – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Im5zHGLZx0

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”


So hopefully I haven't wasted my time in posting this.

Ignoring the first "I'm such a victim" comment, looking at what he said, I can tell you exactly why Romney is in trouble in this election: A real contender would have his economic plan as number one, not some rhetorical nonsense like "exceptionalism."

The economy is Obama's weakest point at the moment, regardless of whether it's all his doing. A good challenger would be going after that, not this exceptionalism and "Obama is arrogant" nonsense (Romney isn't arrogant? Bull****.). You want to know why it's hard to have a real conversation about this election? It's because of **** like this. My vote could go either way at this point, but what are some REAL reasons to vote for Romney? I care about the economy. I care about ensuring every single American (EVERY SINGLE ONE) has access to affordable healthcare. I care about getting us out of these expensive and pointless wars and not starting more. I don't think I'm in the minority in this. I also need more than "well, Romney isn't Obama." Actually, in the areas I care about, he IS Obama.

The corporations are the primary concern of both. Not me. Not the average American. Things I don't care about? Gay marriage. Abortion issues. Whether "god" is in the pledge of allegiance. Christmas. Building some useless wall on the border. Anything to do with any church. Phantom voter fraud. If he stuck to the economy and provided how he plans on fixing it rather than simply saying "I'm not Obama," he would have more than a chance at winning. Instead he's going to make me choose between his social views and Obama's, between the odds of going into more wars with him vs Obama. He's going to lose that battle. Hell, at this rate, I'm voting for Bill Clinton.

Obama is beatable, but if you are expecting to win with the rhetorical bull**** that makes up the top ten (can only imagine what the other 90 are), you are wasting your and everybody else's time.

And Republicans can't talk about being partisan. This Congress was a complete waste. They refused to work on ANYTHING bipartisan. Their sole goal wasn't the betterment of the American people, it was "stop any and everything the other side puts forth, no matter what it is." Hypocrites.

So, if you are going to come in here and spew the usual rhetorical B.S., you are going to be disappointed. But if you want to have a good discussion about stuff that actually matters, welcome! The more the merrier. It's unfortunate that several left because they could only rely on the former and didn't like it when they were challenged on it.

TheWalrus
09-28-2012, 10:57 AM
... and embracing a possible military confrontation with Iran.

This is a reason to vote for Romney why?

LouPhinFan
09-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Really what irks me to no end is all we had to do to beat Obama was put someone out there that was a halfway competent campaigner. Romney is not a halfway competent campaigner. Obama was very beatable especially with unemployment still this high and so many of his promises he made in 2008 having gone unfullfilled. Instead they put a bland, boring, cookiecutter looking guy who no one in our own party is even sure of his conservative credentials (he held many opposing views during his time in as gov of Mass versus his campaign now).

I should have seen this coming when he attempted to make a $10000 bet with Rick Perry during one of the primary debates. Way to keep in touch with the average American there Mitt. Even Perry wasn't stupid enough to touch that comment, and that guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

JackFinfan
09-28-2012, 11:03 AM
Really what irks me to no end is all we had to do to beat Obama was put someone out there that was a halfway competent campaigner. Romney is not a halfway competent campaigner. Obama was very beatable especially with unemployment still this high and so many of his promises he made in 2008 having gone unfullfilled. Instead they put a bland, boring, cookiecutter looking guy who no one in our own party is even sure of his conservative credentials (he held many opposing views during his time in as gov of Mass versus his campaign now).

I should have seen this coming when he attempted to make a $10000 bet with Rick Perry during one of the primary debates. Way to keep in touch with the average American there Mitt. Even Perry wasn't stupid enough to touch that comment, and that guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Romney is basically the GOP version of Kerry in 2004.

LouPhinFan
09-28-2012, 01:45 PM
Romney is basically the GOP version of Kerry in 2004.

Pretty much.

I think it's real telling about how America thinks Obama has done by the fact that Obama still has to campaign pretty hard in the battle ground states. Had he been a half way decent president he could be on cruise control right now but he's still having to do some work. He should be mopping the floor with Romney but he's not.

Obama will win in November but it won't be by the margin he should have if he was at the very least an average president.

Spesh
09-28-2012, 01:49 PM
Mitt Romney borrows money from the federal government to help save the winter olympics=hero.
Barack Obama passes any sort of policy at all during his Presidency=socialist.

Funny how that works. I was going to go through the top 10 that Troganfin listed and rip them apart like they so deserve, but its just to absurd. Paul Ryan actively tries to fire Obama and Obama's "body language" is a cause for concern. I will remember that though, the body language thing, the next time i see a Republican call Obama a socialist foreigner who eats dogs.

Its depressing that no conservative can sit here and rationally talk about how a Mitt Romney Presidency will be a good thing. How his policies are sound and his leadership would be consistent. Instead we get crap like "A democratic president acted like a democrat! Gawd!" and "Romney believes in American Exceptionalism!!!"(with the same words that Obama would describe American Exceptionalism). Buzzwords, innuendo, negative attacks, constant constant constant deflections away from why Romney would be decent and instead direct the conversation about how bad Obama is.....it just never changes. Its enough to start making me think Obama was a great President. If he wasnt, wouldnt Republicans be able to tell me how they would do things differently?

If there was ever a visual representation of the point ive been making, this is the thread. 7 of the first 10 points in TrojanFin's post started with the word "Obama". 70%. And yet we are suppose to vote Romney into the most powerful position on the planet. Just trust him. Right.

Spesh
09-28-2012, 01:52 PM
Ignoring the first "I'm such a victim" comment, looking at what he said, I can tell you exactly why Romney is in trouble in this election: A real contender would have his economic plan as number one, not some rhetorical nonsense like "exceptionalism."

The economy is Obama's weakest point at the moment, regardless of whether it's all his doing. A good challenger would be going after that, not this exceptionalism and "Obama is arrogant" nonsense (Romney isn't arrogant? Bull****.). You want to know why it's hard to have a real conversation about this election? It's because of **** like this. My vote could go either way at this point, but what are some REAL reasons to vote for Romney? I care about the economy. I care about ensuring every single American (EVERY SINGLE ONE) has access to affordable healthcare. I care about getting us out of these expensive and pointless wars and not starting more. I don't think I'm in the minority in this. I also need more than "well, Romney isn't Obama." Actually, in the areas I care about, he IS Obama.

The corporations are the primary concern of both. Not me. Not the average American. Things I don't care about? Gay marriage. Abortion issues. Whether "god" is in the pledge of allegiance. Christmas. Building some useless wall on the border. Anything to do with any church. Phantom voter fraud. If he stuck to the economy and provided how he plans on fixing it rather than simply saying "I'm not Obama," he would have more than a chance at winning. Instead he's going to make me choose between his social views and Obama's, between the odds of going into more wars with him vs Obama. He's going to lose that battle. Hell, at this rate, I'm voting for Bill Clinton.

Obama is beatable, but if you are expecting to win with the rhetorical bull**** that makes up the top ten (can only imagine what the other 90 are), you are wasting your and everybody else's time.

And Republicans can't talk about being partisan. This Congress was a complete waste. They refused to work on ANYTHING bipartisan. Their sole goal wasn't the betterment of the American people, it was "stop any and everything the other side puts forth, no matter what it is." Hypocrites.

So, if you are going to come in here and spew the usual rhetorical B.S., you are going to be disappointed. But if you want to have a good discussion about stuff that actually matters, welcome! The more the merrier. It's unfortunate that several left because they could only rely on the former and didn't like it when they were challenged on it.

You win the forum.

TrojanFin
09-28-2012, 07:41 PM
I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20071227&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=712270396&SectionCat=&Template=printart)Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf). He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2)
Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2) He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Comstock) The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/pappu/4) nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a] (http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/5_may/50305_ROmney_predicts_surplus.htm),[9b] (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/can_fred_thompson_fill_the_gop.html),[9c] (http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=20714923-fd55-418e-93b3-257fb03334de&t=c) and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf) By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Larson) He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml)
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST25000003) While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch03.htm) The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch07.htm), a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


Here's the response I am expecting to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

TheWalrus
09-28-2012, 08:24 PM
I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20071227&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=712270396&SectionCat=&Template=printart)Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf). He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2)
Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2) He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Comstock) The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/pappu/4) nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a] (http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/5_may/50305_ROmney_predicts_surplus.htm),[9b] (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/can_fred_thompson_fill_the_gop.html),[9c] (http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=20714923-fd55-418e-93b3-257fb03334de&t=c) and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf) By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Larson) He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml)
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST25000003) While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch03.htm) The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch07.htm), a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


Here's the response I am expect to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

LOL. Where'd you get this from? A vending machine at the RNC?

phins_4_ever
09-28-2012, 08:40 PM
I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20071227&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=712270396&SectionCat=&Template=printart)Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf). He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2)
Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2) He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Comstock) The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/pappu/4) nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a] (http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/5_may/50305_ROmney_predicts_surplus.htm),[9b] (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/can_fred_thompson_fill_the_gop.html),[9c] (http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=20714923-fd55-418e-93b3-257fb03334de&t=c) and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf) By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Larson) He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml)
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST25000003) While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch03.htm) The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch07.htm), a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


Here's the response I am expect to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

a) Obamacare is Romneycare and vice versa.

b) Olympics: The Olympic ran about 390 Million dollars in the minus. Romeny lobbied and got between 400 Million and 600 Million from Congress - THE FEDERAL F****** GOVERNMENT.

Before Romney took the position, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks.[147] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Fire_Within-157) Plans were being made to scale back the Games to compensate for the fiscal crisis, and there were fears they might be moved away entirely

The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[146] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries5-156)[151] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-161)[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-karloly-162) and $600 million[153] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dobhuntOly-163)[154] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-heldoly-164) of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[154] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-heldoly-164)[155] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-isikoly-165) It was a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-karloly-162)[155] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-isikoly-165) An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects.[156] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-ap-hunt-166)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#2002_Winter_Olympics

c) Mitt as governor????

Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, he faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.[163] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-173) Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion.[186] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Telegram-196)[187] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-197) Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the state ran surpluses of around $600–700 million for the last two full fiscal years Romney was in office, although it began running deficits again after that.

So he got lucky because of his predecessor implemented a capital gains tax and he himself enacted additional fees and removed corporate tax loopholes. No kidding.


Romney supported raising various fees, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses, to raise more than $300 million.[163] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-173)[186] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Telegram-196) He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[163] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-173)[186] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Telegram-196) Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[186] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Telegram-196) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[163] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-173)[192] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-203)[193] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg013105-204) He did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.[192] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-203)[193] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg013105-204)

Let me see: cut the expenses and increase the revenue. Sounds like Obama last summer and his idea which was tossed by Ryan and the rest of the Republican crapolas.

And how much to the people in Mass love Romney?


The governor had a 61 percent job approval rating in public polls after his initial fiscal actions in 2003, but it began to sink after that.[218] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-mason-polls-230) The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;[218] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-mason-polls-230)[219] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-aap08-790-231) at 34 percent in November 2006, his rating level ranked 48th of the 50 U.S. governors.[220] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-232) Dissatisfaction with Romney's administration and the weak condition of the Republican state party were among several factors that led to Democrat Deval Patrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick)'s 20-point win over Republican Kerry Healey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Healey), Romney's Lieutenant Governor, in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election,_2006).[219] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-aap08-790-231)[221] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-healeypoll-233)

Here is a Romney summary on some issues:


Unemployment and new jobs creation

Romney’s term as governor fell during a respite between two nationwide economic recessions.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hicksproof-32) When he took office in early 2003, the nation as a whole was still suffering the effects of the early 2000s recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession). Massachusetts was losing manufacturing jobs, and, with an economy heavily dependent on the technology sector, had been badly shaken by the dot-com bubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble) collapse.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-zarrolijobs-33)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-wburjobs-34)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hamburgerjobs-35) When the national economy eventually began to improve, the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-balljobs-36)

Job growth in Massachusetts rose at a rate of 1.5 percent (compared to the national average of 5.3 percent), placing Massachusetts 47th of the 50 states in new job creation over the course of Romney’s term.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-farleyjobs-37) The annual rate of job growth was improving by his last year in office, moving Massachusetts up from last place nationally to 28th.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-farleyjobs-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-jacobsonjobs-38)
Economists note that governors generally have relatively little impact on their states' employment numbers, good or bad, as these are dominated by forces beyond their control.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-farleyjobs-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-jacobsonjobs-38) The statewide health care reforms that Romney helped enact, and signed into law in April 2006, exemplified the state's national leadership role in that industry; overall, there was a 7.6 percent increase in job growth in healthcare and social assistance positions during Romney's term, the strongest growth during that time of any sector.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-wburjobs-34) Romney also personally intervened to help attract to the state, or maintain within the state, several large employers, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol-Myers_Squibb) and the Gillette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_%28brand%29) division of Procter & Gamble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procter_%26_Gamble).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hamburgerjobs-35) However, some business leaders said Romney’s policies that increased fees and corporate tax revenue drove up business costs and may have weakened job growth.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-wburjobs-34)

On average, unemployment rates were slightly worse in the rest of the nation than in Massachusetts for the first three years of Romney’s term.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hicksproof-32)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hamburgerjobs-35) By his final year in office, the state was struggling to keep pace with the rate of falling unemployment nationwide.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hicksproof-32) Massachusetts’ national ranking leapt from the 29th highest in unemployment when Romney took office to the 18th by the end of his term.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hicksproof-32)
Unemployment in Massachusetts rose during Romney’s first year from a rate of 5.6 percent in January 2003, when he took office, to a peak of 6.0 percent in mid 2003.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics-39) It then steadily declined over the remainder of his term, ending at 4.6 percent in January 2007,[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics-39) his last month as governor, for a net improvement in unemployment of 1.0 percent.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hicksproof-32) Much of the improvement in unemployment was due to the loss of working-age adults who moved away from Massachusetts during the period (as the size of the population shrinks, there are fewer job seekers, so the unemployment rate falls).[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-zarrolijobs-33)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hamburgerjobs-35) Massachusetts experienced one of the highest levels of net out-migration of any state during Romney's term.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-zarrolijobs-33)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-hamburgerjobs-35)




Fiscal policy

During the campaign for the governorship in 2002, Romney proposed a plan that he said would balance the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-aap-04-1) However, he refused to sign a pledge from the Massachusetts-based Citizens for Limited Taxation to not raise taxes, saying that he was against tax increases in general but did not intend to make a commitment that would prevent him from considering all options necessary to address the revenue needs of the state.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-pf-pledge-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-5) (On December 31, 2006, with his term about to end, he did sign a similar anti-tax pledge put forth by Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist)'s Americans for Tax Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform), as part of his soon-to-start presidential campaign.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-pf-pledge-4))
Upon entering office, Romney faced an immediate budget shortfall for the current fiscal year and a deficit for the following year initially projected to be $3 billion, although outside analysts and the state Department of Revenue said that that projection was too high, as it was based on faulty revenue predictions.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-otherdetails-6) (Massachusetts' fiscal year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year) begins July 1 of the preceding calendar year.) To close the deficits, he asked for, and was granted by the state legislature, emergency powers (under the existing Section "9C" authority in state law) to make cuts in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Romney cut spending and restructured state government.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-7) Romney, in concert with the legislature, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses and firearm licenses, increased fees for many other state licenses and services as well as creating new fees. In all 33 new fees were created and 57 fees were increased, including some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs. Opponents said the reliance on fees imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Telegram-8) The state of Massachusetts thereby raised $501 million in new income in Romneys' first year, more than any other state in the nation (New York was second with $367 million). Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Washington_Post-AP-Leblanc-2007-08-28-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-taxreform-10) He also increased a state gasoline fee originally intended for cleanup of contamination around underground fuel storage tanks.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2) This two cents per gallon increase made for a total effective state gasoline tax of 23.5 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue and surpluses of $40 million over the costs of the cleanup program.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2)
Romney also implemented a "New Market Tax Credit"[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-11) and extended the "Investment Tax Credit" during 2003.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-12)
The additional revenue from a capital gains tax increase that had been enacted prior to Romney's taking office reduced the projected deficit by $1.3 billion. Romney approved $128 million in tax changes and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-otherdetails-6)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg013105-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-14) Specific changes and 'loophole' closures included preventing corporations from assigning income from "intangible" assets such as trademarks to low-tax states, preventing some corporations from avoiding taxes through paper restructurings, requiring businesses that only traded securities to pay the same tax rates as of other businesses, applying sales taxes to goods bought and modified out of state before being brought in-state, eliminating a tax break of the printing of huge store catalogs, and taxing sales of software downloaded over the internet (which had previously gone untaxed) the same as software purchased on CDs bought in brick-and-mortar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick-and-mortar) stores.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg013105-13)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-internetsalestax-15)
Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-14) The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude in the face of conservative and corporate critics, initially won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage, before Romney backed away from further closings towards the end of his term.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-14) The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-16) In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dnc-17) In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dncnews-18)
Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-19) Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dws-mass-20) For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dws-mass-20) The state's "rainy day fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainy_day_fund)", more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dws-mass-20)
Romney would declare, "We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state's history without raising taxes,"[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-21) although others disputed the claim on the grounds that usage fees had gone up.
As the state's fiscal outlook improved, Romney repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, urged the legislature to reduce the state income tax from a flat rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax) of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-greenbergertaxcut-22) (In 2000, voters had approved a gradual reduction in the income tax from 5.85 to 5.0 percent; but as an emergency measure in response to the fiscal crisis, the legislature had halted the rollback at 5.3 percent in 2002.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-greenbergertaxcut-22)) He also proposed a "tax-free shopping day",[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-23) a property tax relief for Seniors,[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-24) and a manufacturing tax credit.
In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature approved a budget for fiscal year 2007 that required spending $450 million from the rainy day fund. Even though the state had collected a record-breaking amount of tax revenue in the fiscal year,[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-25) the funds were needed to cover the increased spending. Romney vetoed the transfer of funds from the contingency account. The veto was overturned by the legislature, and indeed for the 2006 budget, all 250 line-item vetoes were overturned, and for the entire year of 2006, all of Romney's vetoes of legislative bills were subsequently overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-NYT-2011-10-01-Barbaro-14)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-Concord_Monitor-2007-05-03-Barrick-26) In November 2006, Romney then used his emergency budget-revision authority to cut the $450 million from the budget, saying: "One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced. The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we're looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before."[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-27) Later, he restored some of that amount.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg010707-28)
Upon leaving office in January 2007 (the middle of fiscal year 2007), Romney argued that he had left the state with a large budget surplus, after he cut hundreds of millions of dollars of programs. However, upon taking office, successor Governor Deval Patrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick) said there would be a $1 billion deficit for fiscal 2008 if existing service levels were carried over into the next year's budget.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-ap-deficit-29) At the same time, Patrick restored $384 million in the emergency budgetary authority spending cuts for fiscal 2007 that Romney had made.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg010707-28) The budget for fiscal 2008 that Patrick submitted in February 2007 included $515 million in spending cuts and $295 million in new corporate taxes.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-30) As it happened, fiscal 2007 ended with a $307.1 million deficit and fiscal 2008 ended with a $495.2 million deficit.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-dws-mass-20)
The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries6-2) According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation), from 2002 to 2006 the average rate of state and local taxes in Massachusetts rose from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent (compared to the national rate, which rose from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent).[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#cite_note-31)



This is your candidate....
Want me to start Bain as well?

++++++++++++++++++++
I am Phins_4_Ever and I approve this message :D

phinfan3411
09-28-2012, 08:47 PM
I'll give it a try, i have a very hard time listening to people who actually think one of these two parties is the "one", ignoring the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence of both being so corrupt, and only interested in helping themselves, drives me crazy.

I think Obama is terrible, the fact that he has support is mind blowing.

I think Romney is almost a carbon copy of Obama, and will change nothing.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson, and do not get me started on that being a empty gesture, or throwing a vote away, that is exactly what the failed two parties want you to think, hoping everyone will forget how close a third party candidate came to winning just twenty years ago.

Throwing that aside, thought Andrew Cuomo was going to suck as the Governor of NY. He seemed to be the same type politician as all the rest, but in my opinion, although not perfect, he has been the best Governor this state has had in years.

So, i know EXACTLY how bad Obama is, he is just as bad as most of the rest before him ( Eisenhower was the last great leader we had, in my opinion), and i THINK Romney will be the same way, but, like Cuomo, he MIGHT surprise you.

That is the only reasonable thought i could come up with to vote Romney, but don't vote for him, vote for Johnson, and lets actually try to get change started.

Gonzo
09-28-2012, 10:12 PM
I'll give it a try, i have a very hard time listening to people who actually think one of these two parties is the "one", ignoring the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence of both being so corrupt, and only interested in helping themselves, drives me crazy.

I think Obama is terrible, the fact that he has support is mind blowing.

I think Romney is almost a carbon copy of Obama, and will change nothing.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson, and do not get me started on that being a empty gesture, or throwing a vote away, that is exactly what the failed two parties want you to think, hoping everyone will forget how close a third party candidate came to winning just twenty years ago.

Throwing that aside, thought Andrew Cuomo was going to suck as the Governor of NY. He seemed to be the same type politician as all the rest, but in my opinion, although not perfect, he has been the best Governor this state has had in years.

So, i know EXACTLY how bad Obama is, he is just as bad as most of the rest before him ( Eisenhower was the last great leader we had, in my opinion), and i THINK Romney will be the same way, but, like Cuomo, he MIGHT surprise you.

That is the only reasonable thought i could come up with to vote Romney, but don't vote for him, vote for Johnson, and lets actually try to get change started.

No vote is thrown away. At the very least it's a statement that you don't like the direction of the government and you don't believe either of these fools can correct it.

Spesh
09-28-2012, 10:59 PM
I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.



Mitt Romney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) offered an ambitious plan Friday to try to forestall a recession, proposing a $250 billion economic stimulus package with sweeteners for supply-side conservatives, older Americans and corporations.

Mr. Romney’s proposal, outlined in a telephone interview during a campaign swing through Nevada, is grounded in new, permanent income tax reductions. It is also double the size of stimulus packages offered by two of the Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and far exceeds the $145 billion plan that President Bush suggested to Congress on Friday.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us/politics/19romney.html?_r=2&

Romney supports bailouts(so long as their banks, and Romney tried to take credit for the auto bailout), supports government mandated universal health care, supports using the government to prevent people from voting, supports using the federal government to prevent people from getting married, supports using the federal government to prevent women from having abortions, supports using American troops to overthrown other overthrow and occupy other countries, supports an increase in spending(so long as its to the military), supports stimulus spending.....remind me again how Mitt Romney will lead to small government?

And your right, Obama is the incumbent. His record is available to all, his direction is clear, and his plans are waiting on approval from the House(which will never happen as Republicans have publically stated their opposition towards "compromise" or, you know, governing). Its up to Romney to show the American people how his Presidency would be different. He has failed to do so. He continues to fail in that regard. I have no problem with Obama bashing....so long as i get something positive about Romney. Romney has done half that but still cant tell people why his time in office would be better. All he keeps saying is "Hey, look at how bad that other guy is!!!!". What leadership!

Didnt you start the thread on the premise of convincing people to vote for Romney? I can understand why voting for Romney isnt considered a prize though.

And no one voting for Romney should bring up foreign leader visits. I mean, come on...

TheWalrus
09-29-2012, 02:37 PM
1. Romney- “American Exceptionalism”

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/WHAT-1.gif

Bingit
09-29-2012, 03:00 PM
:confused:

Put up one single quote from anyone on this forum that shows this. Sounds to me like you have an inferiority complex more than anyone else researching their superiority. The issue is you're talking to a group of highly intelligent educated people, who just so happen to be liberal. I think you're mistaking that for something else entirely...

That is an oxymoron! :lol:

TheWalrus
09-29-2012, 04:49 PM
That is an oxymoron! :lol:

"Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. The word you were looking for is "contradiction." The fact that you didn't know this is "irony."

Nice try, though (that one's "sarcasm").

Valandui
09-29-2012, 05:51 PM
"Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. The word you were looking for is "contradiction." The fact that you didn't know this is "irony."

Nice try, though (that one's "sarcasm").

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/starburst-1.jpg

Vaark
09-30-2012, 08:46 AM
Romney is for something until his new voters would prefer he's against something until the polls change and then he's for something.

Misleading thread title: I thought he was handing out magic underwear.. or at least 100 ways to sidestep taxes by secreting wealth in secret offshore tax shelters. Disappointing.

phins_4_ever
09-30-2012, 01:37 PM
"Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. The word you were looking for is "contradiction." The fact that you didn't know this is "irony."

Nice try, though (that one's "sarcasm").

You could also call that statement

highly intelligent educated people, who just so happen to be liberal.
redundant.
:chuckle:

Dolphins9954
09-30-2012, 02:39 PM
I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3] (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20071227&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=712270396&SectionCat=&Template=printart)Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf). He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2)
Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=2) He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Comstock) The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/pappu/4) nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a] (http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/5_may/50305_ROmney_predicts_surplus.htm),[9b] (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/can_fred_thompson_fill_the_gop.html),[9c] (http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=20714923-fd55-418e-93b3-257fb03334de&t=c) and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] (http://www.sacunion.com/SacUnionJan25,2008a.pdf) By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] (http://www.aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Larson) He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/main3544666.shtml)
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST25000003) While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch03.htm) The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15] (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch07.htm), a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


Here's the response I am expecting to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

Is this Glenn Beck????

Please don't refer to yourself as libertarian leaning or libertarian while supporting and voting for Romney. It gives the real libertarians a bad name.

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 02:49 PM
Romney is for something until his new voters would prefer he's against something until the polls change and then he's for something.

Misleading thread title: I thought he was handing out magic underwear.. or at least 100 ways to sidestep taxes by secreting wealth in secret offshore tax shelters. Disappointing.

Wow, deep bud, and you know what, you're right.

Of course you fail to mention how much the democratic partisan idiots are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Please, tell me what has happened to that oh so special time for the anti war movement during the Bush administration. What happened to all those people, seriously?

Tell me what CONCRETE convictions the democratic followers hold?

Are you that frigin blind?

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 02:51 PM
Is this Glenn Beck????

Please don't refer to yourself as libertarian leaning or libertarian while supporting and voting for Romney. It gives the real libertarians a bad name.

I have started to see that more and more, i will be voting libertarian this election, and if the republican party ever somehow becomes joined with the libertarian, count me out.

Spesh
09-30-2012, 03:30 PM
Wow, deep bud, and you know what, you're right.

Of course you fail to mention how much the democratic partisan idiots are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Please, tell me what has happened to that oh so special time for the anti war movement during the Bush administration. What happened to all those people, seriously?

Tell me what CONCRETE convictions the democratic followers hold?

Are you that frigin blind?

Theres a bit of a difference between an entire party and a individual politician. All parties continue to evolve because the world keeps evolving. That said, political convictions usually stay concrete for decades. Abortion rights for women have been largely defended by the left for at least 4 decades. Romney changed his view on that when it was convenient.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes

You seem very annoyed at Democrats for the current attitudes towards foreign policy. Yes, Democrats actively preached about stopped the wars during Bush. Now they are quiet when Obama is in office. That said, we have been stopping the wars and our involvement in foreign affairs has been scaled back. That is fairly consistent with current democratic political goals. Libya was handled far differently then Republicans wanted. Syria has been handled far differently then Republicans have wanted. There is direction and degrees. The direction might be the same, but the degree is far different. The main party that wants a complete removal from the area is Libertarian...and im certain those followers would rather run into traffic before being labeled a democrat.

Tetragrammaton
09-30-2012, 05:01 PM
It is tough to tell the two candidates apart without visuals anyway. Obama has been an awful President, but has also been the best President since Eisenhower. Romney is one of the best Republican candidates in a while, but that is not really a ringing endorsement. Obama is going to win handily and nothing will change anyway, though.

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 05:09 PM
It is tough to tell the two candidates apart without visuals anyway. Obama has been an awful President, but has also been the best President since Eisenhower. Romney is one of the best Republican candidates in a while, but that is not really a ringing endorsement. Obama is going to win handily and nothing will change anyway, though.

You know we do not always agree, but i always know you will give an honest answer, not like most of the partisan honks on most forums.

It is appreciated.

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 09:06 PM
Theres a bit of a difference between an entire party and a individual politician. All parties continue to evolve because the world keeps evolving. That said, political convictions usually stay concrete for decades. Abortion rights for women have been largely defended by the left for at least 4 decades. Romney changed his view on that when it was convenient.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes

You seem very annoyed at Democrats for the current attitudes towards foreign policy. Yes, Democrats actively preached about stopped the wars during Bush. Now they are quiet when Obama is in office. That said, we have been stopping the wars and our involvement in foreign affairs has been scaled back. That is fairly consistent with current democratic political goals. Libya was handled far differently then Republicans wanted. Syria has been handled far differently then Republicans have wanted. There is direction and degrees. The direction might be the same, but the degree is far different. The main party that wants a complete removal from the area is Libertarian...and im certain those followers would rather run into traffic before being labeled a democrat.

I am probably not going to get you to admit that the "scale back" you are talking about does not exist. Bush would have gotten tired of beating up on the same country for so long too.

I have the same view as Ralph Nader has, isn't he a liberal? He certainly does not think Obama is "scaling back" as you put it. I do not agree with him on a few things, but i have always admired that he is true to his beliefs, not a bought and paid for politician or one of the partisan hoards waiting to get their marching orders from Fox News or the Huff Post.

CedarPhin
09-30-2012, 09:21 PM
Did you support the Iraq War?

Spesh
09-30-2012, 09:21 PM
I am probably not going to get you to admit that the "scale back" you are talking about does not exist. Bush would have gotten tired of beating up on the same country for so long too.

I have the same view as Ralph Nader has, isn't he a liberal? He certainly does not think Obama is "scaling back" as you put it. I do not agree with him on a few things, but i have always admired that he is true to his beliefs, not a bought and paid for politician or one of the partisan hoards waiting to get their marching orders from Fox News or the Huff Post.

Probably not. What Bush would have done or not done is irrelevant, under his watch American troops overthrew governments and held the security of those nations under our protection. Are you suggesting that American troops have not withdraw from the area? That there are more troops in Iraq now then when Bush was in office? That our involvement in Libya cost more than our involvements in Afghan and Iraq? Its possible im mistaken, so if so please show me where you got the numbers from.

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 10:14 PM
Did you support the Iraq War?

As painful as the memory is, as i have said before, i was a republican at the start of the Iraq war. I was the only one of my friends that did not think it was a good idea, but i was not where i am today.

Shortly after the start, the thought did cross my mind that i was wrong, but aside from that pretty much against it.

I have changed my view on the Torture subject also, back when i took our foreign policy seriously, i thought it was a tool that may bare fruit, now i do not respect our foreign policy enough to think we have the right to torture anyone.

And if i have not yet made it clear, i feel being anti war only when it serves your particular party is fairly disgusting.

Changing your opinion can happen to anyone, happens to me all the time, i have a problem with the partisan way of doing it, means nothing, just a game.

phinfan3411
09-30-2012, 10:41 PM
Probably not. What Bush would have done or not done is irrelevant, under his watch American troops overthrew governments and held the security of those nations under our protection. Are you suggesting that American troops have not withdraw from the area? That there are more troops in Iraq now then when Bush was in office? That our involvement in Libya cost more than our involvements in Afghan and Iraq? Its possible im mistaken, so if so please show me where you got the numbers from.

You are trying to get me into a black/white situation where one does not exist.

Obama is very good on wording, he is a lawyer after all. One of the first things i remember hearing about him was that he didn't take money from lobbyists, which sounded really good, and on its surface was true, but when you look into it further, it was just BS.

Obama wanted a headline that his minions could use endlessly, and you can see it at work here everyday.

Did the war REALLY end in Iraq? How about Yemen? Libya?

Back in January of 2010, Obama did something many would not give a second thought to, he broadened his war scope by declaring war on Al Qaeda. This was honestly brilliant (Axelrod probably) because it disconnected his war efforts from geography, and literally allowed him to do whatever he pleases in whatever country with that declaration to fall back on.

The hard numbers, as far as troops in combat I am having trouble finding, i will continue looking, but the final part to my argument is his increase in the drone program. This program is going to hurt us for generations to come, and shows an obvious increase from the Bush era.

I guess my point is, even after the war is over, it isn't over, they call it something else.

Maybe 9954 can help with troop levels?

JamesBW43
09-30-2012, 11:47 PM
It is tough to tell the two candidates apart without visuals anyway. Obama has been an awful President, but has also been the best President since Eisenhower. Romney is one of the best Republican candidates in a while, but that is not really a ringing endorsement. Obama is going to win handily and nothing will change anyway, though.

How's South Korea?

TheWalrus
10-01-2012, 12:04 AM
How's South Korea?

They make good movies, that's all I know.

Spesh
10-01-2012, 01:08 AM
You are trying to get me into a black/white situation where one does not exist.

Obama is very good on wording, he is a lawyer after all. One of the first things i remember hearing about him was that he didn't take money from lobbyists, which sounded really good, and on its surface was true, but when you look into it further, it was just BS.

Obama wanted a headline that his minions could use endlessly, and you can see it at work here everyday.

Did the war REALLY end in Iraq? How about Yemen? Libya?

Back in January of 2010, Obama did something many would not give a second thought to, he broadened his war scope by declaring war on Al Qaeda. This was honestly brilliant (Axelrod probably) because it disconnected his war efforts from geography, and literally allowed him to do whatever he pleases in whatever country with that declaration to fall back on.

The hard numbers, as far as troops in combat I am having trouble finding, i will continue looking, but the final part to my argument is his increase in the drone program. This program is going to hurt us for generations to come, and shows an obvious increase from the Bush era.

I guess my point is, even after the war is over, it isn't over, they call it something else.

Maybe 9954 can help with troop levels?

By no means, im not trying to make a black and white argument, im simply trying to understand what your specific objection is. Especially in this thread which is about "why to vote for" Romney.

And yes, Obama is very good at wording, and hes sold himself to lobbyist. I have laughed at Romney/Ryan's efforts to suggest Obama is for gun control, because Obama is an absolute coward when it comes to standing up to lobbyist. I dont think anyone on here(forum not thread) has suggested otherwise.

What about Yemen, Libya? I brought up Libya a few posts ago. Again, im not sure what your specific objection is towards. Obama supported the Libya citizens by shutting down air space and supplying their troops with weaponary. The casualty rates for our troops were none(none publically reported) and cost minimal. I personally view that as a much lesser evil compared to our involvement in Iraq and Afghan.

Im sorry, im not certain what your specific disagreement is about. If ive suggested that our war efforts against terrorists were over, i apologize. I was posting concerning our troop levels, direct involvement, and nation building. My personal view is that we are in conflict with terrorists groups and not nations, therefore we should focus on special forces and other programs(such as drones).

You asked me before on my stance with drones and i answered. I know it hurts us in future generations because we have created alot of enemies with those strikes. That said, Romney not only supports those strikes but wants to increase them and get involved with actually wars(i would define "wars" as the similar policies we pursued under Bush). Again, individual hypocracy is vastly different then political "concrete" convictions. Some party convictions have changed over decades as new information is discovered, Romney individual stances have changed depending on poll numbers.

phinfan3411
10-01-2012, 06:08 AM
By no means, im not trying to make a black and white argument, im simply trying to understand what your specific objection is. Especially in this thread which is about "why to vote for" Romney.

And yes, Obama is very good at wording, and hes sold himself to lobbyist. I have laughed at Romney/Ryan's efforts to suggest Obama is for gun control, because Obama is an absolute coward when it comes to standing up to lobbyist. I dont think anyone on here(forum not thread) has suggested otherwise.

What about Yemen, Libya? I brought up Libya a few posts ago. Again, im not sure what your specific objection is towards. Obama supported the Libya citizens by shutting down air space and supplying their troops with weaponary. The casualty rates for our troops were none(none publically reported) and cost minimal. I personally view that as a much lesser evil compared to our involvement in Iraq and Afghan.

Im sorry, im not certain what your specific disagreement is about. If ive suggested that our war efforts against terrorists were over, i apologize. I was posting concerning our troop levels, direct involvement, and nation building. My personal view is that we are in conflict with terrorists groups and not nations, therefore we should focus on special forces and other programs(such as drones).

You asked me before on my stance with drones and i answered. I know it hurts us in future generations because we have created alot of enemies with those strikes. That said, Romney not only supports those strikes but wants to increase them and get involved with actually wars(i would define "wars" as the similar policies we pursued under Bush). Again, individual hypocracy is vastly different then political "concrete" convictions. Some party convictions have changed over decades as new information is discovered, Romney individual stances have changed depending on poll numbers.


To be honest with you, and this is my fault, many times i get side tracked as far as the original post is. I read through the post, it may interest me, it may not, or i see an opinion i agree with, or one i do not, and i react.

If you've taken my comments as support for Romney, that is not what I intended. I also cannot argue with you about Romney only furthering our current foreign policy, his only plus is that he is actually a unknown, and could surprise me...probably not though.

What i was trying to explain, and doing it badly, even though it had nothing to do with the post is that as far as our aggressiveness in foreign policy, which i never thought to get any higher, managed to do so over the last 3 or so years, and that is ages away from what he campaigned on.

TrojanFin
10-01-2012, 07:01 AM
Getting back to the prior discussion. Apologize in advance for the long read.


@ TheWalrus -
LOL. Where'd you get this from? A vending machine at the RNC?
You should be one to talk since most of your snarky comments could be found inside a fortune cookie. Even so, just know I respect you as a fellow finfan.


@ dolphins9954 - If I was Glenn Beck, I would charge you for my opinions. So to answer your question, no.


Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a two-party system. It has been for some time. Realizing that, you have to find the candidate that is most aligned with your views, and try to change the party from within. That's not Obama, and I don't see Progressivism as ever being compatible with Libertarianism.

I'll tell you what, though, I will buy you a beer if ever a true Libertarian becomes POTUS.
Just don't tell me how to "lean", because that wouldn't be very Libertarian of you.


@ phins_4_ever -

a) Obamacare is Romneycare and vice versa.

There are differences. For starters, one was issued at a state-level and the other would be instituted on a national level. This is huge only in that Romneycare relied on Federal Support to help pay for it. Not exactly sure where the Federal Government is going to go to pay for it when Obamacare goes broke.


Mitt was trying appease Democrats with the creation of Romneycare. The result was a bipartisan effort, which Mitt later admitted was a mistake. This is what he gets for reaching across the aisle.
So why would the POTUS create a model of healthcare based on one that was admittedly flawed? Seems pretty dumb. At least Mitt learns from mistakes made, even if he did have the best intentions.


Here's a quick overview contrasting the two as well from the guy running against Obamacare.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/07/08/key-differences-between-romneycare-and-obamacare/



b) Olympics: The Olympic ran about 390 Million dollars in the minus. Romeny lobbied and got between 400 Million and 600 Million from Congress - THE FEDERAL F****** GOVERNMENT.

Nicely glossed over.


If it was so easy to fix, why was it necessary to call in Romney to fix the problem? Anyone can simply ask for federal tax dollars especially for something like the Olympics right?
Let's look at the situation.


In the aftermath of a bribery scandal surrounding the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, an inquiry held in camera expelled several IOC members, but cleared Samaranch [President of the IOC] of wrongdoing. Samaranch set up a commission to investigate the corruption and introduced reform of the bid process as a result of the scandal.[8]
In 2001, Samaranch did not apply for the presidency again.


Interesting that the IOC President quit just before the Olympic Games. Maybe it was too much for him to handle. Again, a point of emphasis, the Olympics would likely have left the states if not for Mitt's intervention. He obviously new how to handle things with the IOC better than Obama bringing the Olympics to Chicago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Antonio_Samaranch


The Games had also been damaged by allegations of bribery against top officials including prior committee president and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[144]


Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[140] Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers.[142] The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[141][147][148] and $600 million[149][150] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[150][151]


So you conveniently leave out that $300 million were in part to help with security that resulted under the special circumstances of 9-11. It's odd there is no exact amount when it comes to millions of dollars provided by Uncle Sam, because to our Federal government that is small potatoes. However, when you look at the over all budget, that is in the billion column, again there was a lot money to be made up and millions of dollars given by the Fed does seem like that much especially when security made up half that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney


******
According to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (despite this being a partisan source, the figures below are simply facts)


When Mitt Romney came on board, the budget for the 2002 Olympics was $1.45 billion, but it was $380 million in deficit.
To cut to the chase on the numbers, Romney cut $200 million out of the budget (a 15% cut) and finished $100 million in the black...


How?


For example, having a daily "Olympic Newspaper..." Why not let the papers in Salt Lake City handle that job? And so they did.
No limos for VIPS. No lavish hotel suites or parties for the IOC or anyone else. All business.
Romney also donated each of his three years' of salary - $275,000 per year - to charity? Additionally, he personally donated about $1,000,000 of his personal money to the Olympics.


http://theredhunter.com/election_2012/



c) Mitt as governor????



So he got lucky because of his predecessor implemented a capital gains tax and he himself enacted additional fees and removed corporate tax loopholes.


Just clicked on a random citation from your "wiki" research to come up with these nuggets.


Romney attempted to do good:


Every annual budget Romney proposed contained the income tax cut, but the Legislature failed each time to give it any serious consideration.
The failed proposals included civil service reform and cutting bureaucracy in transportation, higher education and the courts. Romney pegged the waste and inefficiency at $1 billion.


However...


Democrats controlled more than 80 percent of seats in the house and senate, far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a Romney veto.
James Nuzzo, a Massachusetts Republican analyst, said it's an academic argument because no amount of grandstanding or sure-handed politicking by Romney would have made a difference.


"He never gave up on trying for an income tax rollback. They just wouldn't cooperate," said Anderson, a member of the Romney campaign's fiscal advisory board. "He talked about it often and not just as an economic issue but one that showed respect for the voters."


There's more widespread agreement that Romney was an effective check on the free-spending desires of lawmakers. The four budgets Romney had control over proposed spending 7 percent more during those four years, which is less than the rate of inflation; however his budget was amended in the legislature and ended up increasing spending 9 percent, still less than the rate inflation.


"Anyone familiar with Massachusetts government would acknowledge it's a pretty difficult place for a fiscal conservative to thrive," said Donohue, an adviser with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.


Despite more than 20 successful years of turning around troubled private companies, however, Romney got the legislature to accept little of his efficiency/reorganization agenda.


Sounds like obstructionism on part of the state-legislative Democrats if you ask me. Here I thought the Republicans were the only ones that did that according to what I read online.

Despite such objections by Mitt's oppenents, however, he was able to:


The state of Massachusetts took in about $18 billion in revenue in Romney's final year in office.


At any event, Massachusetts' ranking on state tax burden improved during that period from sixth highest the year Romney took office to 11th when he left.


At the height of the capital gains tax battle, Romney's office sent notices to all the affected residents about the impending increase, which clogged the legislative switchboard with hundreds of irate callers.


"Due to the public pressure applied, Governor Romney was able to get the legislature to back down. That was a huge political victory for him," said Romney Communications Director Erik Fehrnstrom.


http://web.archive.org/web/20071221092907/http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS08/312130115/-1/news08


Regarding Unemployment (going back to the original wiki):


Why bold?:
the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment.[37]


Only to have it negated by the following line in your list of damning facts and figures.


Economists note that governors generally have relatively little impact on their states' employment numbers, good or bad, as these are dominated by forces beyond their control.


As for Romney's popularity:


A. Massachusetts = Blue State
B. Romney was seen as an outsider, and sadly not one of the Boston cronies. :rolleyes2:
The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;
C. The economy was starting to take a turn for the worst nationally. Usually those in power get blamed.

Lastly Bain:

It's a business. What about it? (again from wiki)

In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity) investment firm, Bain Capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital).[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-atl-pappu-73)
Romney was an entrepreneur and started a business. Good for him.

The firm's first significant success was a 1986 investment to help start Staples Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Inc.)
That company has done alright, and has helped to created jobs. They have this little arena in Los Angeles if I recall.

The firm invested in or acquired Accuride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuride), Brookstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookstone),Domino's Pizza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino%27s_Pizza), Sealy Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealy_Corporation), Sports Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Authority), and Artisan Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan_Entertainment), as well as some lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries3-58)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-howmakemoney-68)[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-84)

Looks like I can thank Mitt for making my high school summer job at Domino's possible.

In 1990, facing financial collapse, Bain & Company asked Romney to return.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-atl-pappu-73) He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991,[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg-leave1b-77)[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-nyt-leave1-78) drawing a symbolic salary of one dollar[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-atl-pappu-73) (he remained managing general partner of Bain Capital during this time).[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bg-leave1b-77)[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-nyt-leave1-78) He managed an effort to restructure Bain & Company's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's one thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-bgseries3-58)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-MrPowerPoint-61)[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#cite_note-atl-pappu-73)

Mitt to the rescue, yet again. Not seeing the problem.

I know what the counter-argument is. What about all those people that got laid off? Honestly, show me a company that has never laid off people. As for some unscrupulous companies that they did business with. A company of Bain's size is bound to make some bad decisions, but none of it directly reflects on Mitt Romney.


At this point I don't expect to change anyone's mind. It seems like they are made up at this point. I enjoyed doing a little more reading on the Mitt concerning his drawbacks and strengths. I know a lot of people that think Obama and Romney are one of the same. I like to think even if the candidates are not "ideal" that there is still one that is superior.

Again I like to play the role of the contrarian, and after the effort put into this post, I may just stick to the football forums for awhile.

TruthBeTold
10-01-2012, 09:52 AM
Candidate Romney who has actual experience creating real public sector jobs or Candidate Obama who knows how to spend more stimulus money and never created a real job in his life?
Is this really that hard to figure out?
Candidate A is superior and why would I want four more years of Obama failure and no new plan.
Vote Romney and lets get this country in forward motion and out of the ditch that Obama still has America in!

TheWalrus
10-01-2012, 11:00 AM
@ TheWalrus -
You should be one to talk since most of your snarky comments could be found inside a fortune cookie. Even so, just know I respect you as a fellow finfan.

I save my well thought out posts for threads and posters that deserve it. Neither you nor this thread qualify.


Again I like to play the role of the contrarian, and after the effort put into this post, I may just stick to the football forums for awhile.

How is it being a contrarian when you're just repeating Republican talking points -- to the point of just copy and pasting them -- ad naseum? That's like the least contrarian thing a person can do.

JackFinfan
10-01-2012, 11:16 AM
Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a two-party system. It has been for some time. Realizing that, you have to find the candidate that is most aligned with your views, and try to change the party from within. That's not Obama, and I don't see Progressivism as ever being compatible with Libertarianism.

I'll tell you what, though, I will buy you a beer if ever a true Libertarian becomes POTUS.
Just don't tell me how to "lean", because that wouldn't be very Libertarian of you.


Yes we currently have a 2 party system, but there's no reason to why we can't change that. Especially if both parties keep giving us candidates like Kerry, Obama, Bush, and Romney. I've voted in 2 general elections, once for the GOP and once for the Dems. I've been disappointed both times. I'm tired of voting for a candidate because he's less horrible than the other guy. A vote for 3rd party is a vote against the 2 party system, and I can't think of a better election to vote against this horrible system.

As for which of the two parties is more Libertarian. The GOP lines up with Libertarians more than the Dems in regards to fiscal issues, and the progressives line up with Libertarians more than the GOP in regards to social issues. At least when you go by their platforms. In reality (practice), they both are far and away from Libertarians in all areas.

phins_4_ever
10-01-2012, 06:26 PM
.....

Great another Statler on our hand.
When are you people understand that selective quoting is simply crap? You not only selectively quoted me but also some of your links.

Not playing that game. This is so right-stupid.

Awsi Dooger
10-01-2012, 08:55 PM
In this situational climate -- trying to oust an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term -- Republicans needed a candidate to passionately support, regardless of the opponent. But I don't think that's in the conservative DNA right now. They are more comfortable believing the presidency is a right wing birthright, that anyone on the other side is evil and deserves to be twisted. I didn't fully grasp how far it went until reading David Brock's excellent, "Blinded By The Right." Read that book and birtherism is easily understood. It's merely the adaptation toward Obama.

In 2003 and 2004, liberal sites were flooded with Bush hatred, the so-called ABB or Anyone But Bush attitude. It was pathetic, and led to false impression that the majority of the country was in your camp, and that the negativity was broadening your base all the time. I was ripped on liberal sites for denouncing the approach. When the GOP succeeded with the "Party of No" theme in 2010 I thought they might realize it was a one-shot deal and heavily influenced by situation, that Democrats never show up in the midterm immediately following a successful presidential takeover, i.e. 1978 and 1994. I predicted on liberal sites that Republicans would never follow the masochistic 2004 lead from Democrats and nominate bland Mitt Romney, someone the base had already rejected once, in 2008. Granted, I never correctly predict the GOP nominee. I obviously don't know how they think. But this time I was certain it would be a conservative champion. I expected Mitch Daniels. Chris Christie is too easily provoked and error prone.

When Daniels passed and the remainder of the field was remarkably weak, it left no path other than Romney and belittling Obama. That still has a chance but it's a mind boggling ignorance of the gender gap and its implications. Women want to be cuddled. They won't be swayed by insulting the other potential boyfriend.

The lousy GOP group of candidates can be traced to 2002, IMO. Democrats had a big year in gubernatorial races, including the major midwestern states. Those governors were handily re-elected in 2006. So instead of building a base the Republicans had to scramble. From 2002 their two major gains either did not run in 2006 or were rejected. Romney won in Massachusetts but in 2006 he realized it was a heavily pro-Democratic slant due to Iraq outrage, and he had no chance against Deval Patrick. So he skipped the race and pointed toward 2008. Bob Ehrlch won in Maryland in 2002 but was ousted rather routinely by Martin O'Malley in 2006.

The Republicans have fared better in recent gubernatorial races so their bench should strengthen. It's ideal to have a two term governor with an indisputable track record, someone who can pursue the senate or presidency. That type of candidate would enable the GOP to throw full support and resist the Muslim nonsense and other regulatory themes from its base. But when a party is nominating the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and Todd Akin without noticing there's a problem, I may have to ignore logical handicapping principles and sit back and behold. Going forward against the demographic tide, Republicans will increasingly require a vote-for nominee.

Frankly, Democrats got lucky with Obama. I think the base was determined to punish Hillary for her vote in favor of the Iraq war and Obama just happened to show up. The base could have easily found excuse to support a disaster if Obama had stayed away. The alternative was John Edwards.

Bingit
10-01-2012, 10:48 PM
"Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. The word you were looking for is "contradiction." The fact that you didn't know this is "irony."

Nice try, though (that one's "sarcasm").

:lol: "Jumbo shrimp" is an example of a paradoxical oxymoron. There are different types. I was using the term for rhetorical effect. "Intelligent liberal" is technically not an oxymoron, but can be claimed to be so for humorous effect. Sorry you missed it.

TheWalrus
10-01-2012, 11:28 PM
:lol: "Jumbo shrimp" is an example of a paradoxical oxymoron. There are different types. I was using the term for rhetorical effect. "Intelligent liberal" is technically not an oxymoron, but can be claimed to be so for humorous effect. Sorry you missed it.

You were using the term wrong. The statement you highlighted in Locke's post is not an oxymoron by any definition of the term (as it does not contain the phrase "intelligent liberal"). The only "effect" of which was to produce ironic laughter considering the joke you were making was that liberals are by definition not smart.

TruthBeTold
10-02-2012, 12:30 AM
In this situational climate -- trying to oust an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term -- Republicans needed a candidate to passionately support, regardless of the opponent. But I don't think that's in the conservative DNA right now. They are more comfortable believing the presidency is a right wing birthright, that anyone on the other side is evil and deserves to be twisted. I didn't fully grasp how far it went until reading David Brock's excellent, "Blinded By The Right." Read that book and birtherism is easily understood. It's merely the adaptation toward Obama.

In 2003 and 2004, liberal sites were flooded with Bush hatred, the so-called ABB or Anyone But Bush attitude. It was pathetic, and led to false impression that the majority of the country was in your camp, and that the negativity was broadening your base all the time. I was ripped on liberal sites for denouncing the approach. When the GOP succeeded with the "Party of No" theme in 2010 I thought they might realize it was a one-shot deal and heavily influenced by situation, that Democrats never show up in the midterm immediately following a successful presidential takeover, i.e. 1978 and 1994. I predicted on liberal sites that Republicans would never follow the masochistic 2004 lead from Democrats and nominate bland Mitt Romney, someone the base had already rejected once, in 2008. Granted, I never correctly predict the GOP nominee. I obviously don't know how they think. But this time I was certain it would be a conservative champion. I expected Mitch Daniels. Chris Christie is too easily provoked and error prone.

When Daniels passed and the remainder of the field was remarkably weak, it left no path other than Romney and belittling Obama. That still has a chance but it's a mind boggling ignorance of the gender gap and its implications. Women want to be cuddled. They won't be swayed by insulting the other potential boyfriend.

The lousy GOP group of candidates can be traced to 2002, IMO. Democrats had a big year in gubernatorial races, including the major midwestern states. Those governors were handily re-elected in 2006. So instead of building a base the Republicans had to scramble. From 2002 their two major gains either did not run in 2006 or were rejected. Romney won in Massachusetts but in 2006 he realized it was a heavily pro-Democratic slant due to Iraq outrage, and he had no chance against Deval Patrick. So he skipped the race and pointed toward 2008. Bob Ehrlch won in Maryland in 2002 but was ousted rather routinely by Martin O'Malley in 2006.

The Republicans have fared better in recent gubernatorial races so their bench should strengthen. It's ideal to have a two term governor with an indisputable track record, someone who can pursue the senate or presidency. That type of candidate would enable the GOP to throw full support and resist the Muslim nonsense and other regulatory themes from its base. But when a party is nominating the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and Todd Akin without noticing there's a problem, I may have to ignore logical handicapping principles and sit back and behold. Going forward against the demographic tide, Republicans will increasingly require a vote-for nominee.

Frankly, Democrats got lucky with Obama. I think the base was determined to punish Hillary for her vote in favor of the Iraq war and Obama just happened to show up. The base could have easily found excuse to support a disaster if Obama had stayed away. The alternative was John Edwards.

Not sure how stunted growth and mind boggling debt accumulation could ever be considered lucky. This guy has no clue and it is becoming more and more obvious everyday. Foreign policy? That debacle in Libya is just another example that he is clueless and not a leader and commander. You talk about Ireland and how he is a stiff. Well pot meet kettle. Freaking can't even throw a ball.

TrojanFin
10-02-2012, 05:44 AM
@ Walrus
I save my well thought out posts for threads and posters that deserve it. Neither you nor this thread qualify.

Well I am sure everyone looks forward to seeing them someday.

@ Walrus
How is it being a contrarian when you're just repeating Republican talking points -- to the point of just copy and pasting them -- ad naseum? That's like the least contrarian thing a person can do.

How is presenting evidence that is "contrary" to what was previously presented on the thread not contrarian? Key word is contrary.

I'll take my ad naseum over the many liberal ad hominems I have been seeing on this thread any day.

@ phins_4_ever
When are you people understand that selective quoting is simply crap? You not only selectively quoted me but also some of your links.

I thought that's what you were doing. I know the media is notorious for doing it. That's why I tend to trust things I have see with my own eyes, and not necessarily randomly selected information cherry picked from a source.

I can tell you that I live in Los Angeles, California and it's going into the crapper based on progressive politics. The difference here is that there no Republicans to blame for our city's and state's misfortune.

If you don't believe it can be that bad in California... read this article and know that I have confirmed it with my own eyes.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability

Check out these other examples of Progressive politics in my state.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants-1.html

Does our state really need to be focusing on the needs of illegals when its losing money like it is? Why do they need drivers licenses again? So it can make it easier for them to commit voter fraud perhaps?

Well we do have train that is going to cost millions and millions of dollars sitting in the middle of the desert to help keep various interest groups happy, namely unions, so I shouldn't be surprised. This is important to you because half of it was subsidized by federal tax dollars.

So how does this relate to Obama? Allow me to make that connection...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/obama-usda-met-30-times-with-mexican-govt-to-promote-food-stamp-use-among-mexican-immigrants/

Awesome! Let's feed people in Mexico when we have people that genuinely need assistance here in the States. The tax dollars for food stamps for non-citizens could be better spent elsewhere, like maybe helping Americans get back on their feet.

For a long time, local Progressive policies have been bailed out by the Federal Government, but in the end who bails out Washington when find themselves in trouble?

Spesh
10-02-2012, 09:33 PM
Nicely glossed over.
If it was so easy to fix, why was it necessary to call in Romney to fix the problem? Anyone can simply ask for federal tax dollars especially for something like the Olympics right?
Let's look at the situation.

You avoided my stimulus point, how Romney not only supported Stimulus spending but put forward a plan that made Obama/Clinton’s look conservative, and have subsequently tried to explain away how it’s totally acceptable that Romney borrows money from the federal government but not anyone else. I will quickly pause and note that it doesn’t matter why Romney borrowed the money, it’s whether he did or not. He did and is praised for it. Anyways, this sort of cognitive dissonance is not uncommon and deserves a closer look.

Part of your own support of Romney comes from, and I quote, “His integrity/character”. As well, you continue to post defenses of Romney using his own websites as some sort of statement of fact. Is acting hypocritical a positive or negative quality when it comes to integrity? And why should we believe anything Romney says in his own websites? Let’s break it down into two categories, pre-presidential election campaign and post presidential election campaign:

Stimulus spending!
Pre-Presidential election:


“Mitt Romney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) offered an ambitious plan Friday to try to forestall a recession, proposing a $250 billion economic stimulus package with sweeteners for supply-side conservatives, older Americans and corporations.
Mr. Romney’s proposal, outlined in a telephone interview during a campaign swing through Nevada, is grounded in new, permanent income tax reductions. It is also double the size of stimulus packages offered by two of the Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and far exceeds the $145 billion plan that President Bush suggested to Congress on Friday.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us/politics/19romney.html?_r&_r=1&

Post Presidential election:

“Mitt Romney rounded out a week focused on what he views as overspending by the federal government with a critique of President Obama's stimulus program during a speech in front of what opponents call New Hampshire's "bridge to nowhere."
Romney has argued throughout the campaign that Obama's $787-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a waste of money that did little to jump-start the economy — and he has charged that the federal government has inflated the job numbers associated with various projects.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/news/la-pn-romney-new-hampshire-bridge-stimulus-20120518 (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/news/la-pn-romney-new-hampshire-bridge-stimulus-20120518)

Abortions!
Pre-election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lNDsyKnQIes

Post election:

Former -- and perhaps future -- Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney talked with radio host Don Imus (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/romney-i-never-really-called-myself-pro-choice/) Wednesday morning about his views on abortion rights.

"Now, when you changed your mind abortion and went from pro choice, I guess, to pro-life, what -- walk me through the, what caused that," Imus asked.

"Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was," Romney responded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/mitt-romneys-abortion-sta_n_493808.html

Health Care (specifically individual mandate, because Romney has said he would keep much of Obamacare)!
Pre-election:

“Mitt Romney’s support for an individual mandate as part of his signature health care legislation in 2006 has never been in doubt. But emails unearthed between then Massachusetts Governor Romney and top staffers reveal how close he was to the crafting of “Romneycare” and provide details on how he persuaded a skeptical Democratic legislature to adopt the provision.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-health-care-2006-individual-mandate-massachusetts.php


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmihmlb1LBY&feature=player_embedded

Post election:

It’s unclear how insurance companies could cover those with preexisting conditions without the individual mandate for everyone to buy insurance -- part of the law Romney has said he would repeal if it isn’t struck down by the Supreme Court.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-12/romney-outlines-health-care-plan-as-supreme-court-weighs-law.html

Gay Rights!

Pre-election:

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.html

Post election:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has signed a pledge (http://www.nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Romney-Signed-Pledge.pdf) sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment "defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20088274-503544.html


Gun Control!
Pre-election:

As governor of Massachusetts, he signed the first permanent state ban on assault weapons.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said at the bill-signing ceremony in 2004, according to a news release issued by the governor’s office at the time. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/22/news/la-pn-colorado-shooting-renews-focus-on-romneys-gun-control-stance-20120721

Post election:


“I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons,” Romney said during a Florida debate in 2008. “I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people.”

That is the same stance he holds today.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/22/news/la-pn-colorado-shooting-renews-focus-on-romneys-gun-control-stance-20120721


Tax Pledges!
Pre-election:

Back in 2002, Romney said, "I'm against tax increases. But I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth." At that time, his spokesman called the no-tax pledge "government by gimmickry."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/11/mitts_no_tax_mirage/

Post election:


Norquist dismissed recent criticism of the pledge by prominent Republicans like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/jeb-bush-grilled-on-capitol-hill-differs-from-party-on-no-tax-pledge/) and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html), and pointed out that a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, along with the GOP’s presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, have all signed the pledge.

“It’s not necessary for somebody to sign the pledge to not raise taxes,” Norquist said. “[Jeb Bush] is not running for president. Romney is [running] and Romney’s made that commitment, so that’s sort of a settled question at the national level for Republicans. And, again, you have a strong majority of the Republicans in the House and Senate who have just made sure that we’re not going to be raising taxes, and with President Romney he’s committed to vetoing any net tax increase.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/grover-norquist-defends-anti-tax-pledge-on-capitol-hill/
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/grover-norquist-defends-anti-tax-pledge-on-capitol-hill/)

Campaign focus!(no Pre/Post for obvious reasons)


With just 50 days to go until Election Day, the Republican presidential candidate plans to reinforce the specifics of what he would do as president, offering voters a rationale for his candidacy by specifically addressing what he would do to help struggling middle-class families at a time when more voters are beginning to pay attention to the years-long presidential campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/mitt-romney-refocuses-campaign-on-the-economy-with-two-new-tv-ads/2012/09/17/0cf6699a-00ba-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html


Sensing a potential opening, Mitt Romney is shifting his focus back to foreign policy amid controversy over the Obama administration's response to a terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-shifts-focus-back-obama-foreign-policy-121539207--election.html

I could literally keep going. So, why should anyone take any of your posts seriously when you use Mitt Romney's own websites as some sort of defense for him? Do any of these shifts reflect positively on his integrity? And what would Mitt Romney have to do to earn the label RINO from you?

Dolphins9954
10-02-2012, 09:45 PM
CrY5-nxPHeA

Bingit
10-03-2012, 04:26 PM
You were using the term wrong. The statement you highlighted in Locke's post is not an oxymoron by any definition of the term (as it does not contain the phrase "intelligent liberal"). The only "effect" of which was to produce ironic laughter considering the joke you were making was that liberals are by definition not smart.

You should use "incorrect" when referring to factual information. I was using the term incorrectly. It was a joke! "Intelligent liberal" was implied when I used the term. That is the whole point of the joke. Even if I spelled it out for you, it would still not be considered a true oxymoron. Again, it was a joke! You know this, but would rather be a smart aleck. If you want to come across as an intellectual, you should work on your grammar and punctuation.

Locke
10-03-2012, 05:34 PM
You should use "incorrect" when referring to factual information. I was using the term incorrectly. It was a joke! "Intelligent liberal" was implied when I used the term. That is the whole point of the joke. Even if I spelled it out for you, it would still not be considered a true oxymoron. Again, it was a joke! You know this, but would rather be a smart aleck. If you want to come across as an intellectual, you should work on your grammar and punctuation.

:lol:

Perhaps you should make a funny joke next time then? That one fell flat...

TrojanFin
10-03-2012, 05:50 PM
You avoided my stimulus point, how Romney not only supported Stimulus spending but put forward a plan that made Obama/Clinton’s look conservative, and have subsequently tried to explain away how it’s totally acceptable that Romney borrows money from the federal government but not anyone else. I will quickly pause and note that it doesn’t matter why Romney borrowed the money, it’s whether he did or not. He did and is praised for it. Anyways, this sort of cognitive dissonance is not uncommon and deserves a closer look.

Part of your own support of Romney comes from, and I quote, “His integrity/character”. As well, you continue to post defenses of Romney using his own websites as some sort of statement of fact. Is acting hypocritical a positive or negative quality when it comes to integrity? And why should we believe anything Romney says in his own websites? Let’s break it down into two categories, pre-presidential election campaign and post presidential election campaign:

I could literally keep going. So, why should anyone take any of your posts seriously when you use Mitt Romney's own websites as some sort of defense for him? Do any of these shifts reflect positively on his integrity? And what would Mitt Romney have to do to earn the label RINO from you?

SMH
I can see you really put a lot of work into this rebuttal, but I am afraid you are only hurting your cause.

Stimulus spending!
Romney’s $250 billion stimulus plan utilizes supply side economics as you indicate in your quotations, and the purpose of such a stimulus is to provide tax incentives for people to go back to work and to create jobs. In contrast, Obama’s $840 billion Keynesian stimulus plan (http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx) which has created an army of czars to oversee this mess and a supposedly accountable GAO (part of the GSA) that cannot be trusted to be fiscally responsible on a trip to Vegas. That sounds like a lot more government bloat.

Yes, Romney would have been spending money in the form of a stimulus, but with a different purpose than creating crony capitalism and keeping all his union buddies and financial backers happy. The ultimate goal would be to recoup that money over time, rather than buy everybody off.

Is there a Conservative precedent for Romney stimulus plan? Why yes there is… Ronald Reagan did it last time (in 1981) when there was an economic downturn due to Jimmy Carter’s mess. And no one would ever accuse Reagan of being a RINO since he is the poster-child for the modern GOP. You can also quickly compare those two here (http://politicallyempowered.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/reagan-v-obama-stimulus-plans/) if you would like.

Also, last time I looked, $250 billion is still a lot less than $840 billion.

Abortions! Gay Rights!
Yay…social issues! Most of which I find irrelevant in this particular election, since I feel this sidetracks from the main issue which is the economy. Let’s address it anyway.

So contrary to popular belief, Romney wasn’t always a Conservative. He started as an Independent before becoming a Republican. His beliefs and opinions on various issues have evolved over time.
Based on your evidence Romney never was really comfortable with being called “pro-choice” but was never quite as outspoken about being “pro-life” as he is today. He does believe the exception to the rule to be rape, incest or life-threatening issues as a result of childbirth.


”Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was," Romney responded.


He did flip from being politically pro-choice to pro-life while he was Governor, but he has never flopped back to being pro-choice again. Mitt has always been personally pro-life, but didn't feel confident to impose his values on others until he was confronted with more information as Governor of Massachusetts.

http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/faq/

As for gay rights, I think these words best sum it up:


Does Mitt Romney support gay rights?]Mitt Romney has pledged to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation and supports the same rights for all citizens. However, marriage is not a right because it is a religious institution that the government has no right to legislate.

http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/faq/

Again, let’s see pro-life, hates discrimination and believes in the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and woman. Is Romney a RINO yet?

Gun Control!
"I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes…I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have." - 1/24/08 at Boca Raton, FL debate

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/second-amendment/

So you are saying Romney had to play referee on a particular gun bill? Romney is a member of the NRA and a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Don’t see any problems there either.

Tax Pledges!
Ok, now we are reaching. So the issue is not with taxes themselves, but whether he was a proponent of “pledges.” Mitt initially thought them as gimmickry, and then he realized that voters needed these sort of reassurances because of their inherent mistrust of politicians. In either case, Romney has made it clear he doesn't like raising taxes. I can get behind that.

Health Care!
And now to retort a site called http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com./) I have already touched upon the differences between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” previously. In fact when I used www.mittromneycentral.com (http://www.mittromneycentral.com/), it was used only for illustrative purposes (http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/07/08/key-differences-between-romneycare-and-obamacare/) to show the differences between the two plans. The rest of my points came from Wikipedia. Also the former site that I used was created by his supporters not the Romney campaign. Still it’s more unfiltered than what you would get from the New York Times, but I digress.

“Romneycare” and “Obamacare,” while they serve a similar purpose, again take a different approach to achieve those mean just like the aforementioned stimulus plans.
Simply put, Mitt feels healthcare should be unique to the state or local community. It should not be a one-size-fits-all plan on a national scale, nor should it punish businesses for having full-time employee or infringe upon the religious rights of various groups (see Catholics and Obamacare).

“Obamacare” doesn’t do that, so guess what he wants it repealed. “Obamacare” may get shot down yet because it lacks a severance clause, and may go again before the Supreme Court because it does infringe upon religious freedoms (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/01/courts-hear-two-lawsuits-challenging-obama-abortion-hhs-mandate/).

Campaign focus!
So I take it you have never heard of politicking? Romney is running for President, and if Obama is has other shortcomings he is more than willing to point them out.

Right now Obama is dealing with two issues (or scandals) regarding national safety. Fast and Furious (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/univision_leaves_out_key_facts_on_fast_and_furious_cover-up.html) and the Benghazi Bombing Cover-up (http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-the-growing-stench-of-obamas-libya-cover-up/article/2509347#.UGypyE2HJv4) are going to have people question Obama’s “integrity” or at least that of his administration. It is becoming apparent that Obama and his staff are becoming overwhelmed when it comes to foreign relations matters.
While the economy is an important issue, the safety of Americans is also right up there.

In summary, Romney harkens back to Reaganomics; is a pro-lifer, believes in traditional marriage; is a proponent of the 2nd amendment and gun ownership; believes in less government and taxes; feels that un-enumerated powers belong to the states (such as healthcare decisions); plus he is big on the safety of our borders and that of Americans globally. This doesn’t sound like a RINO to me.

While you try to simply dismiss one of my links because it purports to tell us where Mitt Romney actually stands, it beats having to interpret the pre-filtered articles of the mass media that pretends to know what Mitt is all about. I guess that's unfair because it makes it too easy to make my case, I guess.

I think next time I’ll just take a page out of the book of Dolphins9954 and just put up a youtube video.
Actually, why wait? After all, the title of this thread is also why we should also “vote against Obama.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QGDJhXznrU

WVDolphan
10-03-2012, 11:38 PM
Has anyone else noticed how much Al Sharpton's upper body has shrunk while his head has stayed ridiculously large? He looks like a very tall dwarf.

Spesh
10-04-2012, 10:47 PM
So contrary to popular belief, Romney wasn’t always a Conservative. He started as an Independent before becoming a Republican. His beliefs and opinions on various issues have evolved over time.


Key sentences.

His opinion evolved when it was popular to. You spent your entire post justifying each position, but you cant justify his inconsistency. I never asked what each position was, as i posted the before and after i knew what the postions were, i asked why should i trust him. You couldnt answer. Also find it hilarious Obama was involved in your post. Only time i mentioned him was the point out Romney had a similar stimulus, key word, plan(plan being the direction, not the degree which Obama kicked up more and Romney later stated it still wasnt enough). Goes to show, you cant make a case for Romney without trying to discredit Obama.

If you cant justify his consistency at previous moments in time, why should we believe him at this moment in time? The answer is: we cant. His views could change tommorow.

And small government isnt allowing the government to prevent people from getting legal medical procedures and preventing marriages to take place because your uncomfortable. Thats big government intrusion into everday life. You know, a RINO(view).

Also, Romney is in favor of traditional marriage:
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/mittromney_prideflier-1.jpg (http://postimage.org/)