Posted on 09/07/2012 6:30:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Truth is the new hate speech.”—“Creeping Sharia”
“We [the people] own this country.”—Clint Eastwood
I feel like I ought to start out each of my articles anymore with a disclaimer, or caveat saying something along the lines of “WARNING: The contents of this article are to be considered null and void in the event of a “Reichstag Fire,” false flag event, and/or an invasion by Russian Spetsnaz in collusion with Northcom,“or words to that effect.
My intent is not to make light of such concerns, as God knows we have reason enough to be more than a bit edgy these days—what with the Patriot Act, NDAA, the torrent of Obama EOs (Executive Orders), various government agencies stockpiling millions of rounds of ammo, and other such things.
Personally, I am what you might call a cynical optimist—I hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I keep myself open to the idea that the US can peacefully pull itself out of the colossal mess that it is currently mired in—but I have enough guns, ammo, freeze dried food and whatnot to open a small survivalist store.
Be that as it may—the main topic that I wish to address in this article is my decision to back the Romney/Ryan ticket, and the fallout from that. Contrary to what some of you may think, I have not rushed off and enlisted in the “Dark Side.” I am as opposed to the Big Bank/ Big Corporation/Big Government/Big War cabal as ever...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
“I am not voting Romney. I am voting against Obama... and I will crawl over glass. Otherwise Obamacare will become law... and you might as well kiss America goodbye.”
I’ve got bad news for you. Romney’s surrogates over the past year have declared it’s impossible to repeal ObamaCare, but they sure would like to tweak it and keep all the “good” ideas that are in it.
Romney likes ObamaCare. He’s just bad that it’s cutting 750 billion from medicare. In MA he did not have to do that, see. No no no, he just shifted 50 percent of medical costs to the feds. Maybe he can fix ObamaCare with his good, conservative capitalist sense.
>>My comment is that my indifference to the farcical Romney/Obama battle remains about the same.<<
RaisingCain - Glitter bomb posting since
Since Apr 15, 2012
Therefore, your prideful refusal to improve our current status is absurd.
Romney has the support of the National Right to Life Committee. He is hardly “pro abortion”.
You will make it possible for more abortions to happen.
Think of this like a war:
Which hill will you attack first? The enemy is firing from two different positions. You must make a choice. No matter what you decide, people will die.
Which decision brings victory faster?
Which decision defends life, in the long run?
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state’s highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and had several children. The Department’s responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses. The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Department on May 7, 2002, and the plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate” before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]
X 3
ABO.
or Abs when it comes to Paul Ryan.
Isn’t this a Romney H8r thread?
Who said you’re allowed to make sense?
But even in local elections make sure you Vote Conservative-Tea Party!
Who would the Gipper vote for?
My wife and I are voting Romney/Ryan. This is no election to sit this out or vote 3rd party and hope for the best. That’s the dumbest thing anyone can do. It’s Romney/Ryan or this country goes down the tubes.
Beyond that, a glance at the history of Romneycare in Massachusetts shows that Romney’s instincts and initiatives were for free-market reforms. An 85 percent Democratic legislature thwarted his best efforts, and a Democratic successor as governor twisted the law’s trajectory dramatically.
Before Romney’s time, Massachusetts had enacted a number of laws that made its health-care system needlessly expensive. All policies offered in the state were required to cover expensive treatments like substance-abuse counseling and infertility. In 1996, the state passed a law requiring “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” — meaning people could wait until they got sick to purchase health insurance. Naturally, rates skyrocketed. In addition, a 1986 federal law required hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay.
Romney’s idea was to permit Massachusetts insurers to sell catastrophic plans. As Avik Roy explained in Forbes, “Shorn of the costly mandates and restrictions originating in earlier state laws, these plans, called ‘Commonwealth Care Basic,’ could cost much less. Romney also proposed merging the non-group and small-group markets, so as to give individuals access to the more cost-effective plans available to small businesses.” Romney’s plan would also have involved a degree of cost sharing, so that those receiving subsidies would have an incentive to minimize their consumption.
Romney agreed to the mandate believing that Massachusetts citizens would get the opportunity to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic plans. But the legislature, together with Romney’s successor as governor, Deval Patrick, changed the law to require insurers to offer three tiers of coverage — all of them far beyond catastrophic care. Perhaps Romney ought to have foreseen what future legislatures and governors would do — but that’s a far cry from the accusation that Romneycare was indistinguishable from Obamacare.
Romney’s proposed reforms included fraud-prevention measures for Medicaid, requiring the income of both parents to be considered in children’s Medicaid eligibility, medical-malpractice tort reform, and giving individuals the same treatment as small businesses in the purchase of health plans. He envisioned a system of increased competition and choice.
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn’t countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called the Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and another provision expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health-reform law Romney introduced — as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor — stressed competition, reduced regulation, and expanded choice for the consumer.
It was a mistake for Romney to sign the bill. As Avik Roy put it, “The individual mandate was a loaded gun that Romney handed to his opponents, who used it to force individuals to buy comprehensive insurance they didn’t need.” But Romney’s bona fides as a free-market advocate and critic of Obamacare are not undermined by Romneycare. He can rightly claim that he foresaw, and attempted to prevent, the consequences of heavy-handed government control of the health-care market.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Hey, Noob. Trolling for the DUmp? Trying to stir up division here on FR? I think you are. And I really think you’re voting for Obama.
“Plantation logic for the self enslaved.”
Spot on. The GOP owns us in exactly the same way the DNC owns the black voter. Fear keeps us in line and securely on the plantation. They can ignore us, throw us a bone or two in the platform (which they promptly say they’ll ignore), and we’ll crawl over broken glass, hot coals, and a minefield to vote for whatever liberal the GOP picks.
While we live in fear, we’ll remain powerless and praying for some great conservative hero to save us - next election.
Only having Obama as President makes it acceptable to vote for Romney. Almost as if it was planned.
Perfectly stated.
Than not voting for Obama must help Romney!
I'll do my part, by not voting for Obama. This sort of tough math question has some people stumped, but I've got it figured out well enough. Besides, I'm like deep-in-the hurtgen-forest surrounded by Dem voting Zombies, in a winner-take-all state.
For the first time in my life I won't be voting for either of the two main political party's candidates at the top of the ticket. I flat out refuse.
The GOP may have lost me forever now. They fail, and I'm pissed. They've not much represented me anyway, other than being a lesser or different evil from the rapidly increasing darkness of the Democrat Party.
I have begun to SERIOUSLY HATE THEM ALL!
“Only having Obama as President makes it acceptable to vote for Romney. Almost as if it was planned.”
Yep. Back to the slow boil. Too many frogs were getting ready to jump. Back to the lethal complacency of the last twenty three years. The warlocks’ cauldron simmers on. Bye bye frogs.
“Hey, Noob. Trolling for the DUmp? Trying to stir up division here on FR? I think you are. And I really think you’re voting for Obama.”
I really think you prove that there is no superiority of the Republican over your average Democrat. They’re both slaves of their respective parties, engage in personal attacks and group think and generally just go along with whatever party leadership tells them to go along with. ABO! ABO! ABO! ABO! (and in 4 years, if the country is still around) ABH! ABH! ABH! (Anybody but Hillary!)
I’m certainly not happy about it.
But regretably the GOPe has pushed this fiasco on us.
A vote for either one of them involves being complicit in abortion.
It’s like asking who would you give a gun to, the man who you know plans to murder 5 people, or the man who you know he plans to murder 2 people?
Certainly two murders is better than five, but there really is no excuse to give that gun to either one of them.
As I said, I certainly do not feel happy about having been put into this position.
Give it a rest.
We have two candidates.
Obama. And Romney.
Make your choice. Then once the next President is elected, start working with that.
It is (far) too late to change the choice we have in front of us. Do what you’re supposed to, and then move further after the election.
Vote for Romney in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.