The Real Mitt Romney

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

..Partial birth abortions are the worst of the lot. Here an infant is almost fully born - it's head is out of the birth canal. Then the "doctor" kills the baby by destroying the infant's brain, (usually by sucking out the brain... ...

I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.

We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say?

If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say?

If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

The founding Fathers didn't come up with those idea's for gov't. They had been proposed earlier by men like John Locke, etc. They were smart enough to see the wisdom in them, however.

The Republicans are fighting for something:

1) a smaller, and more efficient gov't:

It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.

That WILL collapse the monetary system, no matter WHO you are.

Also, as the gov't gets larger, and has more and more control over everything, it's obvious that your personal freedoms evaporate faster than the dew on a warm Summer morning. If you want to keep your freedoms, you have to limit the power of the gov't, to usurp them. For instance, if the feds control the health care system, they may say, that you could keep your current doctor. That sounds good. But once they have control of the health care system, they can change it in a flash, so you can't keep your doctor, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Because unlike a health care company, you can't take threaten them with a lawsuit, you can't take them to court. They've changed the law, and it's all legal, and you're just OUT OF LUCK. The gov't has what no company can have - sovereign immunity.

That's the big difference - with a company, they usually have an oversight gov't official - like the Insurance commissioner, you can appeal to. If that fails, you can take them to court, and force them to live up to the terms of their contract with you. And EVERY treatment option for you, when you can be seen by what specialist, etc., it's all up to the gov't.

This is the same gov't that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome, during Hurricane Katrina (while 15,000 people or more, waited), and thought it was a good idea to put burning tear gas canisters into the WOOD frame building where the residents were staying, in Waco, Texas - catching the structure on fire, and burning them all to death.

Is this REALLY who you want to be in charge of setting up your health care system? Senators who tell you they'll "vote for the health care bill, and write it later?"

Really?

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...
It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.
...

Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?

And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.

Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!!

[Sheldonrs]

Quote: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?

And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.

Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!!

Bush was not a conservative. Socially, he was conservative, but in his foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and his fiscal irresponsibility, he was anything BUT conservative.

Yes, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and yes, they were in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of Afghanistan. And it doesn't mean we have to build up their country and spend 10 years there, either. In 3 months, we should have been in and out.

We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.

Jefferson was a real case study in never being satisfied. He wasn't satisfied with his wife, he also wasn't satisfied with his farm, his state, the federal gov't, the way the war was being fought, etc. He stated he didn't like slavery, but kept a number of slaves, all his adult life.
So why would he be satisfied with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or much of anything?

You can find opinions against the constitution, all over the place, especially in the liberal and/or progressive followers. The problem is, if you made a Constitution that the liberals and the progressives really liked, your country wouldn't last 50 years.

FDR was a great progressive and liberal, and thought he should be able to "pack" the Supreme Court, to get what he wanted approved.
Was his idea a good one? I don't believe so. Lots of examples like this.

Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy.

Romney is trying, for political purposes, to distance himself from Obama, on foreign affairs. And that's hard to do, because Obama has followed the path that Bush begun, very closely.

Romney will not be staying in Afghanistan, and we won't be going to war with Iran. It's not in our best interests to do that, if that makes sense to you. It IS in our best interests, to ACT LIKE we may choose to go to war with Iran.

Why? Because the Mullah's have still not decided on whether to pursue nuclear weapons. We want to "nudge" them away from doing it, with a bit of saber-rattling (something they understand very well).

It is FAR better to threaten them now, than face the alternatives, (either a war, or Iran with nuclear weapons), later. Also, the Iranian "rial" has gone right into the shitter, so they are starting to get civil unrest against their gov't, and they have a LOT less $$$ to spend on things like a nuclear weapons program.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.

Nope (from here)

Crumpton, who headed up the CIA's Afghan campaign, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining "the back door was open." But Franks balked.
So Crumpton turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal. "We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush. Cheney also was in the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the One Percent Doctrine.
But they did nothing. In spite of the CIA's repeated advice to move against bin Laden in Tora Bora, the commander-in-chief and his top security advisers did not act. They ignored key intelligence.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy...

Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.