Test of Fire: Election 2012

To: RedMDer; All

Meanwhile in Russia, the beat goes on. See link about vote suppression by Putin.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-local-elections-test-putins-grip-140050314.html

81 posted on 10/14/2012 9:37:36 AM PDT by gleeaikin

To: campaignPete R-CT

Glad to hear that nothing I do here can be held against me. Am not a theologian. So thanks. However, if I had my way those who support infanticide, sodomy, envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness, theft would be held accountable. But then maybe I too would have to answer for my sins.

82 posted on 10/14/2012 10:21:58 AM PDT by all the best (`~!)

Lovely and powerful ad. I rarely watch a whole ad, this one I did all the way through.

83 posted on 10/14/2012 10:31:45 AM PDT by dforest

That worked (I had to re-install a new modem anyway, so I wasn't sure until the new one was in place).

Thanks!

84 posted on 10/14/2012 2:05:07 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: all the best

“those who support infanticide, sodomy, envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness, theft would be held accountable.”

Those folks are out CAMPAIGNING for somebody. And doing it successfully. I was in a church today at a prayer rally, where they were praying about the elections. The people there are not supporting anybody because they do not know who they support. They don’t even know who is running in the crucial local elections.

So the Body of Christ in Connecticut is boycotting the campaign and then compensating by showing up on election day to vote for the Republican ticket? Maybe. What percentage just will vote Romney and leave much of the rest of the ballot blank?

If our voters do not know who the candidates are, how can they be effective advocates? And who authorized them to boycott the campaign?

85 posted on 10/14/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)

To: RKBA Democrat

neither candidate has any interest in reining that in. They also don’t fundamentally disagree on the political perspective of those who should be appointed.

Oh, I see. You are another one of those "there is no difference between Obama and Romney"... If you genuinely can't see any difference then this topic is a waste of time.

Question... are you still a Democrat as your screenname states? If so, perhaps you could spend less time complaining about the moderate RINOs that have gained power in the GOP and do something about allowing the KGB to take over yours?

86 posted on 10/14/2012 3:05:28 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)

“Oh, I see. You are another one of those “there is no difference between Obama and Romney”.

Not really. And you’re being lazy in trying to pigeonhole me. There are vast differences between willard and hussein in their rhetoric and style, and on economic issues I think that they’re fairly dissimilar. On religion, they’re hugely different.

On abortion...not much of a difference. On guns....not much of a difference. On the role of government in society...not much of a difference.

“Question... are you still a Democrat as your screenname states?”

No. I’m not a member of any political party at this point. I keep the site handle out of nostalgia.

87 posted on 10/14/2012 6:54:43 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Leftists are the small hive beetles of the American hive)

To: RKBA Democrat

I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you, I've noticed you making comments along a similar vein. I'm glad you recognize their differences on economic and religion. There are a great many more. By the way, I don't go by what politicians SAY, I go by their records of what they've DONE. For example, on abortion, folks can quote Romney's stating he plans to defund Planned Parenthood. Campaign promises carry no weight with me unless there is a history of action in that regard. Here are the actions I've found.

On abortion...not much of a difference.

Obama voted against the "Born Alive" legislation, you can't get any more pro-abortion than demanding a doctor kill a baby alive and already delivered outside of the mother.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/24/listen_barack_obama_calls_newborn_baby_a_fetus_outside_of_the_womb

Romney:

vetoed a bill making the morning-after pill (abortifacient) available over the counter

vetoed a stem-cell research bill

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/romneys-vetoes-seldom-stood?page=0,0

On guns....not much of a difference.

Obama:

In 1996, signed issues statement supporting banning all handguns

In 2000, co-sponsored a bill to restrict buying handguns to 1 per month.

In 2004, voted against a bill protecting a homeowner if they had to use an illegal gun to defend against a home invasion

In 2005, voted against a bill protecting gun manufactures and dealers from civil liability for guns later used in crimes.

In 2008, supported the D.C. handgun ban argued in Heller vs. D.C.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Romney:

Endorsed by the NRA. Also backed by GOAL, the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts who states:

"During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows."

(The "assault weapons ban" that Romney signed as Governor was actually BACKED by the gun lobby there because it LOOSENED the existing restrictions.)

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

88 posted on 10/14/2012 9:35:14 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)

To: RKBA Democrat

Re: the role of government. We’ve all seen Obama’s view, including his assuming royal authority to rule entirely by Executive Order.

Here is the Club for Growth on Romney’s term as Governor, quotes regarding cutting size of government, entitlement reform, tax reform.

“On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%.”

“Governor Romney receives credit for reducing actual spending unilaterally in Fiscal Year FY2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislature’s throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash “nearly every part of state government” to close a $3 billion deficit.”

“To his credit, Romney attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. Some of his more ambitious proposals were rejected by his über-liberal Legislature. These include: his plans to overhaul the wasteful Boston Municipal Court and close underused courthouses; merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the Highway Department; decentralize management of the University of Massachusetts; streamline the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission; and phase out the obsolete Worcester State Hospital where employees outnumber patients nearly 3 to 1.”

“Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state’s $1.2 billion rainy day fund. While there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature.”

“Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts’ welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.”

“In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%—a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002.”