Posted on 07/17/2009 11:37:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Don't trust him. He's a RINO. Worse than a RINO. He's the enemy within.
You never know where he honestly stands on any issue. What he promises today, he flips on tomorrow. It all depends on which way the political winds are blowing and which office he's running for. He's a liar.
He's a big government socialist. His RomneyCare state run health care system is a big government boondoggle. It's tyranny. Government provided, er, forced health care is tyranny not freedom or free markets. Do not believe the socialist propaganda supporting such nonsense.
Socialized medicine is simply another step to socialized government. Government solutions at the point of a gun are the opposite of what we need. This is socialism! Fascism! Mitt Romney is proud of his big government socialist creation and thinks it would be great for all of America. He wants to force you to accept what the state says is right for you. Your taxes will go up as government costs soar and the quality of the care you receive declines. High costs, long waits, rationing, poor or no service, big government force in other areas is where it leads.
"Hello, we're from the government and we're here to help you." Believe that and you are a sucker!
Say NO to socialism! NO to RINOism! NO to Mitt Romney!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
I trust your judgment, I remember that you warned us about Dubya's "compassionate conservationism" way back then.
The way you cut my quote indicates you anly see half sentences. Given that congress and president mandates emergency rooms treat patients without getting paid AND that no elected ‘conservative’ has ever proposed eliminating this requirement, it only makes sense that you be forced to have coverage to protect the hospital from YOU walking in there getting free treatment. Beck did a story of homeless walking into emergency room daily at 2K per for free meals. Now given that THAT was ruled constitutional it is likely that a mandate will be too, in fact how does MA get away with their mandate.
Just because Levin claims something is un-constitutional doesnt make all laws he doesnt like go away.
Hey just a prediction.
If Sarah runs third party, and Mitt is the GOP nominee, she will get more votes than the GOP forcing it into permanent third party status. Obama will win but it is Mitt who will have effectively doomed the country and once again killed off the GOP, just as he did in Massachusetts.
No, you advocated something that was illegal, and I called you on it. You justified your illegal proposal based on the consequences of something else that was illegal. Rather than correct the illegal behavior, you simply built upon it. You are an example of the reason why the government is dysfunctional.
Given that congress and president mandates emergency rooms treat patients
They have no legal power to do that.
AND that no elected ‘conservative’ has ever proposed eliminating this requirement
Irrelevant.
it only makes sense that you be forced to have coverage to protect the hospital from YOU walking in there getting free treatment.
No, it doesn't make sense. It is simply an example of extending the crime into another crime.
Beck did a story of homeless walking into emergency room daily at 2K per for free meals. Now given that THAT was ruled constitutional
Unlikely.
in fact how does MA get away with their mandate.
A variety of things are legal at the state level but not at the Federal level. That's the whole point behind Federalism, and the basis of US government.
Just because Levin claims something is un-constitutional doesnt make all laws he doesnt like go away.
It is unconstitutional not because someone says it is, but simply because it is from a clear reading of the Constitution itself. The powers granted to the Federal government are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Spending money on health care is not among them.
So was a ban on partial birth abortions, and Bush vs Gore, so what? Completely irrelevent at this point.
It's going to take time to replace the Republican party (as they will simply be absorbed into the Democrat party for the most part). It may take a very long time until their replacements can amass enough power to start to serve their constituents as they were meant to, unlike our current ‘rulers’ who only care about themselves, but you have to start somewhere, and the time seems to be now.
So you're saying the Constitution is irrelevant?
I suppose that explains the authoritarian attitude. Certainly, I would agree that much of the Constitution has been ignored (by both parties), but that doesn't make those illegal actions any less illegal. Just because someone might get away with sexual assault because a woman doesn't report the crime doesn't mean that rape is now legal.
Yea, yea, and yea. Romney would throw the game just like McCain did. His old man was worthless too.
I remember that debate, and Teddy snickering as that weasel Romney tried to run to his left. Teddy was the conservative in the race.
The GOP is setting us up again, led by Fox News.
ROFL!... That is absolutely right... If you convinced MASSACHUSETTS... please don't apply for the position.
:)
Problem is, conservatives want so called unconstitution decisions, ever hear Levin rail against the federal partial birth abortion law??
You think it is idealistic to believe the Constitution means what it says? Or is it idealistic to believe that government shouldn't be composed of a bunch of criminal thugs that break the law with their every legislative act?
of Levin type constitutional theory
I'm not sure why you want to bring Levin into this conversation except to set up some kind of argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. The Constitution speaks very clearly for itself; this sort of spending is illegal, and the people advocating it are criminals. Even if it were not so clear (which it is), the writings of the Founders make it painfully clear that the Federal government was to be one of limited, enumerated powers. If you disagree it doesn't mean there is any controversy regarding the issue; it simply means you are wrong.
never to be the law again that hospitals (and us) must be raped by the uninsured forever, and we must give Obama that as an argument for free abortions (claiming emergency room costs).
No, that would be a rather poor strawman argument. The solution is very simple. It solves all these problems at the federal level. Instead of building error on top of error, it solves the real problem.
The solution is that the Federal government shouldn't be involved in health care in any way outside of that legally allowed under the Constitution (military/veterans).
Problem is, conservatives want so called unconstitution decisions, ever hear Levin rail against the federal partial birth abortion law??
I don't pay attention to media celebrities, but this Levin guy you keep talking about sounds pretty bright.
I disagree. His team was responsible for the attacks on FRed Thompson and Sarah Palin, from within and inside both campaigns.
The only thing that man is far from, is honest Conservatism.
Frankly, Willard is retarded and any conservative that says they'll vote for him, is also, retarded!
I managed to vote for McCain, but if it’s 0bama vs Romney in 2012, I won’t be so conflicted.
Romney makes McCain look like a conservative. Well okay, he makes McCain look like a war hero.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
"The headline of the Gallup poll is somewhat misleading. "Romney Edges Palin and Huckabee in Early 2012 GOP Test." The subhead is the real story: "Palin's favorable rating stable after announcing her resignation." So the numbers are this: The candidate most likely to support for the 2012 Republican nomination for president today based on Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: Romney 26, Sarah Palin 21, Huckabee 19, Newt 14, Tim Pawlenty, 3%. Haley Barbour, 2%. However, when you get to the favorable ratings of current leading contenders, you have Sarah Palin at 72% approval among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents; 56% approve of Romney and 59% approve of Huckabee.
But regardless this cannot be said enough. See, the Gallup poll leads with "Romney Edges Palin 26-21" in, "Who you gonna vote for?" which is three-and-a -half years away. It's irrelevant. Approval numbers: 72% for Palin after this year she's had, and 56% for Romney?
END TRANSCRIPT
I concur. Same reason I’m not so enthusiastic about the Laffer Curve. What “conservative” would want to set the tax rate to MAXIMISE federal inlays?
I’m glad to see this. One of the biggest complaints I have against the conservatives of Talk Radio, is that they sat silent while the republicans decided who they were going to choose because they did not want to influence the vote.
At the very least they could have said these are conservative principles and these are the candidates who uphold these principles. These are the liberal principles and these are the candidates who uphold those principles. If some complained they were being treated unfairly, have them on the show and grill them.
Instead we got RINO after RINO pretending to be conservative. As the real conservatives were pushed out, the radioheads sat silent and eventually, only the RINOs were left. The conservatives of talk radio do an injustice to their listeners when they don’t stand up for conservative principles, when they just wait to see who wins. If all the republicans running were conservative, that tactic might work. But where there are RINOs in conservative clothing, they need to be ferreted out and exposed.
I hope Rush and others can see this as well and I hope we don’t have a replay of 2008 in 2012.
RE :”I don’t pay attention to media celebrities, but this Levin guy you keep talking about sounds pretty bright. “
Just another ‘constiutional purist” that only objects to actions that he dislikes (socialist stuff) that are not authorized in the written constitution but is happy with ones he likes. Conservative violations of purity like Scalia (who is my favorite) ruling partial birth abortion federal law IS constitutional makes the purist position DOA even as a defendable concept. And Levin is a phony,
How about a law “If you dont get insurance the hospital doesnt have to treat you without valid credit or cash” ? So instead of a fine its “You are on your own”. Unfortunately my first idea has a much better chance than this one which is why I wrote it.
So you assert. I've never payed attention to what he writes or says so you'd have to cite specific examples before I would find your assertions valid (not to suggest they aren't, since I know quite a few "conservatives" who have little if any actual respect for the Constitution).
Conservative violations of purity like Scalia (who is my favorite) ruling partial birth abortion federal law IS constitutional makes the purist position DOA even as a defendable concept.
Nonsense. The only think that statement demonstrates is that your thought processes are completely irrational on the issue of Constitutional integrity. A mad-lib style random sentence generator could come up with a more legitimate argument. Such a statement is no more valid than insisting the 2nd amendment is a collective right because Ginsburg said it was.
How about a law “If you dont get insurance the hospital doesnt have to treat you without valid credit or cash” ?
If a state wants to pass a law like that, sure. But it would be just as illegal at the Federal level as any other health-care law.
Unfortunately my first idea has a much better chance than this one which is why I wrote it.
What you are advocating is a crime.
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.