Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker1961 said:
Sure, I can vote 3rd party or not vote on the President line at all but is that really what most people are going to do? Not to mention that anyone who says they are going to do that is told that is essentially the same as voting for Obama.
Click to expand...
People are told all sorts of things on the internet. We can not let our conscience be guided by the way others attempt to apply logic. Will a third party candidate be elected** this election**? Highly unlikey, but then so is it highly unlikely one vote will make a difference. On the other hand, a strong third party showing, especially if it continues might help stop the next Romney being nominated.
 
meltzerboy said:
And what about the moral fitness of a president who sends troops to war in Iraq or Vietnam when that war is not a just one? Or the moral fitness of a president who is involved in a political scandal such as Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair? Or that of a president who bombs innocent civilian populations in Japan? Or a president who has an affair in the Oval Office? When we begin to judge the moral fitness of presidents, I think we will find ourselves often pointing to something we consider immoral according to our own values. It might be better not to become the arbiter of another person’s moral values in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don’t like to post opinions against you because you make a pilpul out of everything. However, every so often you make such outrageous, unpatriotic statements that are unbearable!
The number of deaths of infants through abortion since Roe vs. Wade makes all the military deaths in the 20th century pale in comparison. As for your accusation that we bombed innocent civilians in Japan, that goes beyond revisionism. It is pure hogwash. As discussed to death on another thread, there were no civilians in Japan that did not actively support their war effort. More than half of war production was done in peoples homes. And isn’t it a bit hipocritical of you that you didn’t mention the incindiary bombings of almost all of the major German cities? Was that OK because of the NAZI’s?
I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who distorts facts and comes on this site just to agitate and argue.
 
pnewton said:
People are told all sorts of things on the internet. We can not let our conscience be guided by the way others attempt to apply logic. Will a third party candidate be elected** this election**? Highly unlikey, but then so is it highly unlikely one vote will make a difference. On the other hand, a strong third party showing, especially if it continues might help stop the next Romney being nominated.
Click to expand...
Interesting - you seem more concerned about preventing “the next Romney from being nominated” more than you’re concerned about Obama getting re-elected. That pretty much says it all.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Interesting - you seem more concerned about preventing “the next Romney from being nominated” more than you’re concerned about Obama getting re-elected. That pretty much says it all.

Ishii
Click to expand...
👍

Making a point for the long term is more important than the near term catastrophe. I believe it’s called cutting your nose off to spite your face.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
I don’t like to post opinions against you because you make a pilpul out of everything. However, every so often you make such outrageous, unpatriotic statements that are unbearable!
The number of deaths of infants through abortion since Roe vs. Wade makes all the military deaths in the 20th century pale in comparison. As for your accusation that we bombed innocent civilians in Japan, that goes beyond revisionism. It is pure hogwash. As discussed to death on another thread, there were no civilians in Japan that did not actively support their war effort. More than half of war production was done in peoples homes. And isn’t it a bit hipocritical of you that you didn’t mention the incindiary bombings of almost all of the major German cities? Was that OK because of the NAZI’s?
I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who distorts facts and comes on this site just to agitate and argue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the (undeserved) pilpul compliment of being a Talmudic scholar. And no thanks for the accusation of being unpatriotic, intentionally distorting facts, and being an agitator, especially coming from a fellow New Yorker! I was responding to a point made by estesbob.
 
GAO confirms Obama changed welfare to work rules
In another blow to the so-called fact-checking propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, the Government Accountability Office
Click to expand...
(GAO), said yesterday that the Obama regime must give Congress the chance to block President Obama’s scheme that lets states change, some say “gut,” the Clinton-era welfare to work rules Obama long opposed:

“In July, the Obama administration offered states more latitude in how they can run cash-assistance programs that replaced the welfare system after the 1996 overhaul passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Bill Clinton. … ‘It must be submitted to Congress and the comptroller general before taking effect,’ wrote Lynn H. Gibson, GAO’s general counsel, in a letter to the lawmakers on Tuesday.”

The GAO finding comes just in time for impeached former President Clinton gives the keynote speech tonight at the Charlotte “we all belong to the government” Democrat National Convention.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the GAO’s rebuke of the Obama scheme resulted from a request by Republicans, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, in which they asked the GAO to determine whether the administration’s changes were the equivalent of a rule change that would require congressional approval. Hatch praised the GAO findings Tuesday, saying that they were further proof that the administration could not change the program without Congress’s consent:

“This analysis is unequivocal that any changes must be submitted to Congress,” he said. “Circumventing Congress, as this White House has done, is a flagrant abuse of our system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers.”

You will surely recall how quickly the Democrats’ now disgraced fact-checking propaganda wing jumped to Obama;'s defense when Romney said the Obama rule change would gut the work to welfare reform rules. Now we know that Romney was right to go after the Obama power grab dressed up as an ordinary “information memorandum.”

You can watch Romney’s “Right Choice” ad taking Obama to task for trying to quietly gut the welfare to work welfare reform rules here.

Transcript of the “Right Choice” ad:

“In 1996, President Clinton signed bipartisan legislation to reform welfare by requiring work. Sixteen years later, President Obama quietly gutted this landmark law. Mitt Romney will restore the bipartisan reforms to welfare and move our country in the right direction.”

examiner.com/article/gao-confirms-obama-changed-welfare-to-work-rules
 
_Abyssinia said:
Ad from Romney is not misleading. Clinton is speaking at the DNC convention, he has an interest in defending Obama, he vetoed welfare twice before signing, he is not non partisan. Washington Post gave 4 pinnochios, they are biased, they have been against welfare reform and opposed Clinton when he signed it into law. PolitiFact quotes ‘left leaning Centre of Budget and Policy Priorities’ and they say, ‘the center supports the plan.’ Biased.

The bill Clinton signed specifically said you have to be employed in a job to collect welfare, and it specifically says you can not change or expand the definition of work beyond what is in the bill. Obama, likely illegally, expanded this to mean job education, training, apprenticeships, all sorts. Clinton welfare reform took power back from the states and Obama said you may consider work if it is training, going back to school etc. Specifically lists what the states may do. Obama’s changes empower states to do a list of specific activities that replace work which guts the key part of the welfare bill, it changes the welfare bill. Obama’s changes may be repealed in court
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t make that change. It was in effect at least since 2001. It wasn’t as simple as “Oh I think I’ll go to school instead of working”. You had to take aptitude tests and career interest tests and had to maintain a minimum GPA. They wanted to make sure that if you go for an education that it would be worth it.
 
I’ve been gone for awhile, are we discussing the sexist comments that Jason Biggs made about Romney and Ryan’s wives in this thread?
 
It dawned on me the other day when I was wondering why Romney would take so much time off from his Mormon mission to convert the world – he hasn’t taken time off. Running for President is his mission. He has been preparing for this most of his adult life. He sees this as the biggest conversion opportunity of all time. And it is working. Like LDS or hate it or just plain cannot understand why any rational person would go along with it, we all are talking about it and learning about it.

Romney does not have to say one thing about his Mormon beliefs (although he has and he certainly will). The media are doing that for him: whole hour documentaries; interviews; segment after segment. Funny how these things work. This system that is (basically) a cult (although the members are offended by that description) has become the equal of many lesser forms of Protestantism and is now mentioned and studied by the population in general more than Catholicism. Many will jump on the bandwagon, and I pray for them. Many will see individual Mormons as being clean-cut and law-abiding and will hold them up as examples, as well they should be.

Romney had a plan – I thought at first he had obsessed about becoming President because he wanted to be President; now I realize that he has wanted to be President because it fulfills what he holds dearest in life, and that is his Faith. Would that more Catholics would feel that way about their lives and their Catholic Faith.
 
ishii said:
Interesting - you seem more concerned about preventing “the next Romney from being nominated” more than you’re concerned about Obama getting re-elected.
Click to expand...
I am sure not so blind as to think this will be the last election. There is some truth that I more concerned about the culture that allows abortion to be legal that the fact that it is legal. I believe that restoring the dignity of the human person will have more effect on stopping abortion than any particular election.
 
rlg94086 said:
Making a point for the long term is more important than the near term catastrophe. I believe it’s called cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Click to expand...
Romney is not “my nose” in this analogy as I never supported him for president.
 
pnewton said:
I am sure not so blind as to think this will be the last election. There is some truth that I more concerned about the culture that allows abortion to be legal that the fact that it is legal. I believe that restoring the dignity of the human person will have more effect on stopping abortion than any particular election.
Click to expand...
I agree, actually. However, 😉 at the margins, the reinstating of the Mexico City policy will save lives.
 
scipio337 said:
Maybe they didn’t have a work requirement then. You know, like the one that was passed in 1996, then overruled by executive order?
Click to expand...
Nothing like a little stretching of the truth. Mitt’s grandfather (not Mitt’s father) sought political asylum after everything he owned was stolen from him.
 
SeekNFind said:
So Mitt’s dad was on welfare? I guess welfare was good while it helped his father’s family get on his feet:

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r-Gw6xagczI

Interesting. :confused:
Click to expand...
Is that the way welfare is supposed to work - a short term safety net to help out while you are getting back on your feet? It’s not that the Republicans are opposed to welfare; it’s that all financially concerned people should be against what welfare has become.
 
Cider said:
I’ve been gone for awhile, are we discussing the sexist comments that Jason Biggs made about Romney and Ryan’s wives in this thread?
Click to expand...
I hope Obama gets chastized by poor Sandra Fluke if he doesn;t denounce Jason Biggs comments. That is what a real man does, according to her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top