Presidential Election Poll 10-2-2012

[Vincent_N]

…continued from last post

Another news article from the time.

Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law
He reverses stand on Plan B
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | December 9, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.

Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.

''And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said at the State House after signing a bill on capital gains taxes.

The unexpected decision revived an awkward political situation for Romney, who has staked out more conservative positions on social issues as he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2008. After vetoing the emergency contraception bill this summer, he declared himself firmly ''prolife" and faulted the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Yesterday, abortion opponents, who see the morning-after pill as a form of abortion, predicted a court battle over the issue, while reproductive rights advocates expressed surprise at the change of heart. Democrats accused the governor of a ''flip-flop."

Romney made his announcement a week before the controversial law takes effect. His decision resolves, for now, a debate that has raged since the Department of Public Health disclosed its position Monday. The department had said that the existing statute allowed private hospitals to sidestep the new requirement if they wished. Massachusetts is one of eight states that require all hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims…

boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/?page=full

So, the week before the law would take effect anyway because his veto was overridden, Romney had a choice to be impeached or renege on his oath of office which would have ended the same way. Under no circumstance could he appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to overturn the law because the MA Constitution did not give them the power to do that.

…

I truly do believe Mitt Romney is Pro-life.

I regret the fact that many if not most have been fooled into thinking that he is not because of deplorable tactics used by his opponents whether they were pro-life or anti-life as a matter of political expediency.

Hopefully, you and others are willing to look at the real evidence. I will vote for Romney with confidence and I have complete confidence Pennsylvania is still in play.

 

[rlg94086]

All hearsay and opinion pieces.

Here’s a direct article from that time:

boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/09/16/lawmakers_override_governors_contraception_veto/

Romney did fight for the right of Catholics to exercise there conscience. The Democrats in the legislature ran him over anyway. Don’t forget that MA is a liberal state.

…to be continued

Thanks, Vincent N! I had read these pieces before and alluded to them earlier in the thread, but I didn’t have the links available. I’m glad you are able to refute these posters who are trying to mislead others into wasting their vote on a third party candidate.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

The link in post 199 is completely irrelevent, because it only says the Department of Public Health in Massachusetts is going to write regulations.

The link in post 200 is actually refuted in most of the links I offered you.
The article that you posted was the Boston Globe article that made Mitt Romney cave in. That article was lambasted in almost every link I gave you. Almost every one.

So… clearly you didn’t read one of my 13 links, which you dismiss as “hearsay and opinion”… because you wouldn’t have posted the Boston Globe article that each one of them viciously attacks. I mean, I guess you could… I don’t know why anyone would.

All of my articles. Which are taken from across the political spectrum were all fact-checking the debate. This Boston Globe article was a blatant political attack of Mitt Romney when he was Governor. It was the only one that broke this story… and Mitt Romney didn’t want that story to be picked up, so he acted in 1 day. He overturned the actions of his state department in 1 day.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...the-big-lie-on-honoring-religious-conscience/

[/URL]

A bill was passed requiring hospitals to dispense the Plan B abortifacient to patients. The bill was passed with the clear intention of retaining an existing law that provided a conscience exemption. In fact, Romney’s own Department of Public Health rendered that decision and Romney agreed.

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined,

“Private hospitals exempt on pill law“. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

…

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

On the very next day, after the Boston Globe whined about the decision, Romney’s legal staff overturned the decision.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. **“In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.**”

with the Boston Globe reporting:

“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.”

Let’s be clear what happened here. The Democrat controlled Massachusetts House and Senate passed the law with the intent of leaving previous conscience exemptions in place. Based on legislative analysis, the state Department of Public Health declared that to be their interpretation also. The abortion industry and the Boston Globe whined. Mitt Romney, personally, overrode the conscience provision because “*n my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

It is hard to see how conservatives can criticize Barack Obama for his decision that his personal desire to provide birth control outweighs any possible objection on the basis of conscience when Mitt Romney says he believes exactly the same thing.*

I bolded what Mitt Romney said, because why would he give his opinion on the matter if he were being legally forced to not listen to his own Dept. of Public Health? He wasn’t being legally forced. He personally disagreed with the Catholic Church, and personally thought that “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

And that view trumped an entire Department of the Massachusetts government which tried to fight for the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals. Mitt Romney didn’t want any part of that. He threw the Catholic hospitals under the bus when no one was looking. They wrote 1 news article about it, and he decided that 1 was too many… now was his chance to attack the Church when no one was watching. He forced it to provide contraception because he wanted it to. He said so himself.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Thanks, Vincent N! I had read these pieces before and alluded to them earlier in the thread, but I didn’t have the links available. **I’m glad you are able to refute these posters who are trying to mislead **others into wasting their vote on a third party candidate.

Bring the hemlock, I am trying to mislead the youth.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

You’re kidding yourself if you think that Obama has nothing to do with printing money.

Romney will handle the debt and Bernanke will be history.

If you knew Mitt, you’d know that he under-promises and get the job done.

Don’t get too caught up in the Realpolitik of an election where two guys are targeting a very specific set of voters.

Great, so where’s the plan? The same promises have been made since Eisenhower. The debt never gets taken care of.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Great, so where’s the plan? The same promises have been made since Eisenhower. The debt never gets taken care of.

To expand on the point, take a look at this chart.

elapro.net/Fy2009sp.jpg

The biggest expenditures are social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on national debt, unemployment, the war on terror, and the department of defense.

Romney is talking about decreasing NONE of these, and actually increasing some of them. In case you’re wondering, these things along comprise more than 75% of the federal budget. How do you expect him to make a serious dent in the budget if he’s not going to cut any of these things?

 

[rlg94086]

Bring the hemlock, I am trying to mislead the youth.

Nope. You are trying to mislead other voters. Most people are smart enough not to follow you int obscurity though.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

You cannot get low inflation with low unemployment…it’s mathematically impossible (hence why it’s a Jimmay Carter law)

Also if you think there will be no inflation after the fed, you might want to look into history. Inflation is a natural market process…banning the fed will do nothing to stop inflation. If America went back on the Gold Standard, it will experience inflation just like it did during WWI and lead to spectacular crashes in 1920.

I know the purpose of the Federal Reserve, both stated and real. The stated is to get full employment and control inflation. The real purpose is to solidify the positions of banks and make sure that they stay at the top without any competition (if you don’t agree, try starting up a bank and see what happens).

Now, you absolutely can get low inflation with low unemployment. Hayek described unemployment as (and I’m paraphrasing since I can’t find the exact quote) as labor not being distributed across the demand curve. In other words, people get stuck and aren’t at their optimal jobs. Capital is stuck in low productivity industries instead of being where consumers are demanding it. In other words, you need capital to flow freely in order for production to shift to current demand. What is the biggest hindrance to free flowing capital? Regime uncertainty and inflation. Regime uncertainty makes people very skittish about investing, and inflation saps away the value of capital such that there is just less capital to go around.

Now, what I assume you are alluding to is the Phillips Curve. However, the high inflation high employment conclusion drawn from the curve was proven wrong in the 70s with stagflation when we had both high UNemployment and high inflation. What economists forgot is that the Philips Curve was just an empirical fact and they did not study causation. In fact, with more data, the Philips Curve falls apart. Now what about the low inflation low employment scenario? Economic history handily disproves that. The 1800s were a period of DEFLATION. Instead of the scenario now where prices always go up and grandparents talk about how they used to buy gum for a nickle, grandparents in those days would talk about how they would have to buy gum for a dollar and now it was so cheap and just a nickle. Yet by all accounts we had higher employment back then. So we must conclude that there is no solid relationship between employment and inflation. Economic theory has long believed that you get full employment by eliminating labor laws and allowing capital to flow freely.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Nope. You are trying to mislead other voters. Most people are smart enough not to follow you int obscurity though.

I’m not going to be bullied into voting into office people who want to push for aggressive wars in the Middle East.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not going to be bullied into voting into office people who want to push for aggressive wars in the Middle East.

Good for you! You won’t be bullied! Congrats! You are special!

There, I hope I’ve helped you build your self esteem…

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Good for you! You won’t be bullied! Congrats! You are special!

There, I hope I’ve helped you build your self esteem…

Why the sarcasm? Why are you offended that I don’t agree that voting for the man is a good thing? Why is there no place for a respectable disagreement? I understand your position, disagree with it, but certainly understand the reasoning.

 

[rlg94086]

Why the sarcasm? Why are you offended that I don’t agree that voting for the man is a good thing? Why is there no place for a respectable disagreement? I understand your position, disagree with it, but certainly understand the reasoning.

I’m not offended at all. You whined about being bullied, so I thought I would build up your self-esteem before you started crying.

I disagree with your position because I think it will help reelect Obama and further damage our country, and I think your reasoning is totally flawed.

 

[ishii]

If you think I don’t have reasons to vote for Mitt Romney you are sadly mistaken:

Maintain Robust Military Capabilities in the Pacific
Deepen Cooperation Among Regional Partners (in Asia)
Disarm North Korea (WMDs)
Tough on Iran to prevent a Nuclear Iran
Commit to the On-Time Completion of a Fully Capable Missile Defense System
Won’t be “more flexible” with Putin as Obama will
Punish China’s cheating in trade

A return to Reaganism in regards to Foreign Policy, we will be friendly and co-operative…but we bow and appease to no one!

Mitt’s entire Energy Policy!!!

Turn Government Healthcare over to States
Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
Pro HSAs and Employer pooling of Health Insurance
End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
Promote alternatives to “fee for service”
Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts

Mitt Romney will complete a high-tech fence to enhance border security.
Governor Romney will ensure that we have the officers on the ground we need to gain control of the border.
A Romney Administration will work to develop an efficient, effective system of exit verification to ensure people do not overstay their visas.
Governor Romney opposes all “magnets” that entice illegal immigrants to come to our country.
Mitt Romney will develop an effective, mandatory employment verification system that will enable employers to be sure that those they hire are eligible to work. This will discourage illegal immigrants from coming to America to seek jobs
Mitt Romney believes that young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children should have the chance to become permanent residents, and eventually citizens, by serving honorably in the United States military.

Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today

Repeal Obamacare
Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
Reform Environmental Regulation

Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP
Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels
Privatize Amtrak
Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities
Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding
Reduce Foreign Aid
Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act
Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Eliminate AMT

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Abortion

Stem-cell Research

Marriage

Put it simply, my apprehension to Mitt Romney wasn’t his “issues” it was if he was going to commit to them or just saying them to bargain the Conservative vote. The NAACP speech and this weeks debate has overwhelmingly answered my question. Mitt is a true solid Conservative! This General Election, Mitt didn’t shift to the center to pander Independent votes, he shifted to the Right and promoted Conservatism…the last man that did that was America’s greatest President Ronald Reagan. I am now convinced without a doubt that not only is Mitt Romney a Conservative, he’s the next Ronald Reagan to save America from its demise once again. I was an “Anybody but Romney” since the get go…now*** I can proudly say I am a Mitt Romney supporter.***

I’m donating $25 to Mitt now and buying a cap…even though I really don’t have the money because I am convinced without a doubt, Mitt is the man who will save this country like Ronald Reagan did back in 1980

Go Mitt Go!
May God be with you and guide you to victory!

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4700516011607215&pid=15.1

Hear hear!

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’m not offended at all. You whined about being bullied, so I thought I would build up your self-esteem before you started crying.

I disagree with your position because I think it will help reelect Obama and further damage our country, and I think your reasoning is totally flawed.

How does not voting help Obama? It affects all candidates equally. Please elaborate your reasoning on this.

 

[rlg94086]

How does not voting help Obama? It affects all candidates equally. Please elaborate your reasoning on this.

Pretty simple, actually. Based on your posts, you are more fiscally conservative and pro-life. Which of the two major candidates is more fiscally conservative and pro-life? I’ll answer for you, since you may for with the “they are both the same” meme - Romney clearly is. When a more fiscally conservative, pro-life voter chooses not to vote, it is one less vote for the candidate who could potentially replace Obama. Therefore, his likelihood of defeating Obama decreases.

Now, I could be wrong. Are you a pro-choice, socialist (i.e. big government) leaning voter? I might have you confused with someone else. If you are a pro-choice, socialist leaning voter, then please don’t vote. Your not voting will help Romney.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Pretty simple, actually. Based on your posts, you are more fiscally conservative and pro-life. Which of the two major candidates is more fiscally conservative and pro-life? I’ll answer for you, since you may for with the “they are both the same” meme - Romney clearly is. When a more fiscally conservative, pro-life voter chooses not to vote, it is one less vote for the candidate who could potentially replace Obama. Therefore, his likelihood of defeating Obama decreases.

Now, I could be wrong. Are you a pro-choice, socialist (i.e. big government) leaning voter? I might have you confused with someone else. If you are a pro-choice, socialist leaning voter, then please don’t vote. Your not voting will help Romney.

Pro-life anarcho-capitalist.

You’re still not proving how not voting helps Obama more than Romney. It affects them both equally, and it doesn’t matter to me anyway because:

1. I’m in California
2. Romney would also be terrible in the White House (wars, debt, welfare, etc.)

The closest candidate that I could conceivably vote for is Gary Johnson, but even he is too pro-war for me (plus he is pro-choice). Still, as an an-cap who believes taxation is immoral and wrong and that basically any state action is immoral, coerced, and wrong, it would have to take an ideal candidate to get me to participate in an election.

 

[ishii]

1. I’m not saying Romney is anti-Catholic. I’m saying actions he’s done in the past were anti-Catholic. I’m saying actions he did in the past were condemned by Bishops in Massachusetts. My policy on that is: “One and Done”. You get condemned by a Bishop even once, then I am done with you.

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Gary Johnson, and Virgil Goode have not been condemned or taken part in an action which has been condemned by a Bishop. [Or feel free to prove me wrong]

Mitt Romney has. Obama has.

One and done.

1. I don’t believe in the two party system. Maybe if the GOP didn’t nominate a guy who has harmed the Catholic Church in his past. But they did. If both parties do that, then I demand another party that doesn’t. And we have 2!!! Constitutional Party and Libertarian Party.
   I certainly don’t view myself as having a “fit of scrupulosity”. I view myself as being the temporal punishment for Romney’s sins. He may regret having done what he did to the Catholic Church. But now that he’s done so, he’s gonna have to deal with temporal punishment for it: eg. : my vote.

Wow. So to get this straight: because of Romney’s past “sins”, you will allow an infanticide supporter (i.e. Barrack Obama) to remain in office for another four years? Just want to get that straight: because of what you think Romney did years ago, you will stand by and do nothing to stop Obama from getting re-elected and choosing the next two or so supreme court justices (to make a total of four justices chosen by an infanticide supporter). Instead of helping elect the guy who wants to overturn Roe V Wade, you will help keep a guy who favors partial birth abortion, and this is because of the sins of Romney in the past? I just want to make sure that I’m not misinterpreting you. Is that what you’re saying? “one and done”? Its more like millions more aborted due to the re-election of Obama and the subsequent protection of abortion on demand in this country. Is that what you’re for?

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

Pro-life anarcho-capitalist.

You’re still not proving how not voting helps Obama more than Romney. It affects them both equally, and it doesn’t matter to me anyway because:

1. I’m in California
2. Romney would also be terrible in the White House (wars, debt, welfare, etc.)

The closest candidate that I could conceivably vote for is Gary Johnson, but even he is too pro-war for me (plus he is pro-choice). Still, as an an-cap who believes taxation is immoral and wrong and that basically any state action is immoral, coerced, and wrong, it would have to take an ideal candidate to get me to participate in an election.

To believe your non-vote or third party vote (equivalent to a non-vote) will affect both candidates equally is to delude oneself into thinking that you are straight down the middle. As a pro-life anarcho-capitalist, I highly doubt that.

Waiting for an ideal candidate? Really? What a waste. There is no such thing…at least not one who will get elected.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Wow. So to get this straight: because of Romney’s past “sins”, you will allow an infanticide supporter (i.e. Barrack Obama) to remain in office for another four years? Just want to get that straight: because of what you think Romney did years ago, you will stand by and do nothing to stop Obama from getting re-elected and choosing the next two or so supreme court justices (to make a total of four justices chosen by an infanticide supporter). Instead of helping elect the guy who wants to overturn Roe V Wade, you will help keep a guy who favors partial birth abortion, and this is because of the sins of Romney in the past? I just want to make sure that I’m not misinterpreting you. Is that what you’re saying? “one and done”? Its more like millions more aborted due to the re-election of Obama and the subsequent protection of abortion on demand in this country. Is that what you’re for?

Ishii

Question: do you believe that Romney is conceivably going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

To believe your non-vote or third party vote (equivalent to a non-vote) will affect both candidates equally is to delude oneself into thinking that you are straight down the middle. As a pro-life anarcho-capitalist, I highly doubt that.

I’ve never voted for a pro-war candidate, so I never would have voted for Romney anyway. I can’t vote for someone who is pro-war. Does pro-life outweigh pro-war? That’s a tough call to make.

Waiting for an ideal candidate? Really? What a waste. There is no such thing…at least not one who will get elected.

So instead I should compromise my values and vote for a little less death? Sorry, but I don’t vote for death, whether it’s war or infanticide. Maybe you’re fine with voting for Romney because at least he says he doesn’t support infanticide. That’s great. Just don’t expect my to show my support for a guy who has no problem killing untold numbers of civilians in the Middle East.