The Real Mitt Romney

[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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

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

Not "progress", the word was "progressive", which is pretty much a synonym for liberal ideology.

Apart from the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, (like inalienable rights), once you try changing the Constitution, you can quickly run into trouble. Most of the time, those who want to change it (or ask you to believe their new and subtle interpretation of it), do so only to benefit either themselves, or their party, at everyone else's expense.

[Sheldonrs]

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...nal-amendment/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...he-presidency/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...arty-platform/

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?

The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.

Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!

Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.

That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.

Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.

That one is NOT a political posture.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters...

Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.

[Stormieweather]

~snip~

Originally Posted by Adak

...gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.

from some of our hetero...