Santorum is out !

[Q9]

Q9... I apologize.

Romney believes in traditional marriage. He lives it. Look at his family. "By their fruits ye shall know them"
Romney believes in life. SERIOUSLY, when he has said he believes in a woman's right to choose, it is ONLY in RARE CASES of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother. That's it.
Romney believes in balanced budgets. It's what he has always done and he always finds a way.
Romneycare is in NO WAY like Obamacare. Study it out.
Sadly, many conservatives INCLUDING John Kyl voted for the bailout because they received faulty information. I think the same is true of Romney. NOW almost everyone who supported them, realize what a mistake that was.
I'm one feels that anyone who believes anything anti-Romney is a person who believes rhetoric!
As for the assault weapons ban, he'll readily admit that was a mistake and he learns from his mistakes.

I get my info from all over the net. ...and I'll admit, I also watch Fox and CNN from time to time... but rarely.
But, that said, I can measure most men by looking them in the eye.
I made a determination to get to know Mitt. I've had a number of opportunities to chat with him about the future of our nation and how he will go about RESTORING IT to what it once was. He is truly our ONLY hope at this point.
Sadly, in MA, ANY politician has to "appear" liberal. He may have "appeared" liberal, but, HE IS NOT!
Mitt Romney is a true conservative, just like me. I am praying that conservatives everywhere will get behind him. I also have full faith & confidence that at some point before August, Ron Paul will endorse Mitt Romney.

If you could direct me to an article or video link in which Romney states that he was wrong on gun control, I'd be grateful. With the information I have, it appears he's been quite anti-guns, as far as semi-automatic weapons are concerned. I don't trust a candidate if their positions change and they don't say "I was wrong," and instead pretend they never held the first position.

So, I checked out a few comparisons of Obamacare and Romneycare... and they're remarkably similar. Romneycare requires businesses employing 11 or more employees to provide health insurance; Obamacare requires companies that employ 50 or more, but imposes stiffer fines. Both feature an individual mandate to buy health insurance, which, IMO, is by far the worst part. It was, however, pointed out that Romneycare was an end in and of itself, whereas Obamacare is a means to an end (European style health care). Here's one of the articles I found: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...care-differ-only-in-inconsequential-ways.html There was also one from the American Spectator defending Romneycare, but it didn't point out any major differences in the laws themselves, just the intentions.

Regarding abortion:

His actual record is less than stellar on the issue, as well. By the way, Ron Paul will not drop out, and he will never endorse Mitt Romney, so don't go getting your hopes up.

I honestly fail to see how anyone could vote for a government bailout based on "faulty information." No matter what information you get, it's obviously taking tax dollars and throwing it at failing companies.

 

[Capvin]

What would be really great is if Ron Paul would not endorse Romney AND ran on a third party ticket. I would give him money to do that and vote for him because it would be a 100% way to ensure a victory for Obama. "GO RON PAUL" inbecile

 

[hemet dennis]

I did see a story a few days ago that the government will end up making money on the bail outs. But that may not count Fredie and Fanny but those are government corp. anyway.

Time for the Hockey game now.

 

[nikki1]

I usually like to stay out of political arguments, because it rarely changes any minds. Look at all the posters and sightseers on this thread...I don't see many people stepping up to say, "y'know...you're right! I'm going to change my vote because your words were so convincing." That having been said, here I go. (I would now start a new paragraph, but my return key is being stubborn. Instead, I'll just run this paragraph on as though it was my intention all along to do so.) You all proclaim that you know the constitution, but you're failing to recognize one important point. The writers of the Constitution were extremely gunshy of anything remotely resembling a monarch, so although they recognized a need for a president, they gave that position very little direct power. As a result, while the president is a powerful rallying point for his/her party, and has a great deal of indirect influence over what legislation becomes law, he has to have an awful lot of other people agree with him before he even has a chance to put his signature on the bottom line. Then, if he doesn't have enough backing and a law he doesn't like gets through both houses of congress, and he votos it, congress can still override the veto. Furthermore, if a law he signs is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can overturn it. (New paragraph..stupid return key...) I would suggest, therefore, that although the presiden-tial campaign is undoubtedly important, elections closer to home are just as important, if not more so. Our Congressperson and our Senators have great influence over Federal policy. Our state representatives have HUGE influence over matters in our own states and towns--how our schools will be funded, whether or not our roads are repaired and safe, how we'll be taxed, and so forth. Can anyone out there tell me the names of their school board members? The list goes on and on. (another new paragraph) My point is this: It makes sense to be aware of the presidential campaign, but remember the person elected is only a part of the equation.

Oooh! My return key just came back to life. Woo-hoo! (not going to go back and create paragraph breaks, though)

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to flog me. Did I mention that I usually avoid political arguments?

--Nikki

 

[booker81]

Pretty much nailed it - faulty return key and all

I now actually follow my senators and reps (state and fed) much closer than I follow the presidential. Get email newsletters from all of them, including the ones I don't like, and I write all on a regular basis. That's how to know about new and changing regulation. Much more reliable and real than FOX or CNN.

I usually like to stay out of political arguments, because it rarely changes any minds. Look at all the posters and sightseers on this thread...I don't see many people stepping up to say, "y'know...you're right! I'm going to change my vote because your words were so convincing." That having been said, here I go. (I would now start a new paragraph, but my return key is being stubborn. Instead, I'll just run this paragraph on as though it was my intention all along to do so.) You all proclaim that you know the constitution, but you're failing to recognize one important point. The writers of the Constitution were extremely gunshy of anything remotely resembling a monarch, so although they recognized a need for a president, they gave that position very little direct power. As a result, while the president is a powerful rallying point for his/her party, and has a great deal of indirect influence over what legislation becomes law, he has to have an awful lot of other people agree with him before he even has a chance to put his signature on the bottom line. Then, if he doesn't have enough backing and a law he doesn't like gets through both houses of congress, and he votos it, congress can still override the veto. Furthermore, if a law he signs is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can overturn it. (New paragraph..stupid return key...) I would suggest, therefore, that although the presiden-tial campaign is undoubtedly important, elections closer to home are just as important, if not more so. Our Congressperson and our Senators have great influence over Federal policy. Our state representatives have HUGE influence over matters in our own states and towns--how our schools will be funded, whether or not our roads are repaired and safe, how we'll be taxed, and so forth. Can anyone out there tell me the names of their school board members? The list goes on and on. (another new paragraph) My point is this: It makes sense to be aware of the presidential campaign, but remember the person elected is only a part of the equation.

Oooh! My return key just came back to life. Woo-hoo! (not going to go back and create paragraph breaks, though)

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to flog me. Did I mention that I usually avoid political arguments?

--Nikki

 

[bakerjw]

I would have to dig to be able to cite references, but it is said that George Washington was opposed to a 2 party system. The reason? Eventually retaining power would be more important than following the will of the people. We have 2 partys today and look what we have. It is more important to build the constituency than to address any real problems. Both partys are to blame.

 

[bakerjw]

Not trying to stir things up but I want to be informed as much as possible on the issues. I am on a lot of 2nd amendment forums and I have yet to hear that Mitt admitted that the permanent AWB was a mistake. Can you provide a source?

As for the assault weapons ban, he'll readily admit that was a mistake and he learns from his mistakes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Njikki1, these discussions are not to change any of our minds. It is extremely rare anyone that cares enough to post on here can have their mind changed. We already know the “facts” and are not budging no matter what anyone else says. As long as we stay relatively civil toward each other, these threads can be fun, a little informative, and sometimes quite amusing. I personally thought this line was hilarious. “Moderate translates to no principles.” Doesn’t that tell you a whole lot about the author? The only people that might change their minds are the few readers that have not yet totally made up their minds and are trying to determine their positions. Other than just having fun with each other, those are the people we are talking to.

Our founding fathers set up a form of government in a different world. They had just fought a war and realized that there were several other countries out there that were militarily stronger than them and had designs on our territory. We could not have fought an extended war overseas, just a defensive war and maybe that would have been rough. Consider the War of 1812. We had a whole continent to try to settle. Our prosperity was based on trade. The Barbary Pirates incident tells us about that. Even then we understood that we could not be total isolationists. But the world was different.

I’ll also mention that the Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal government. We had tried the Articles of Confederation and very quickly realized that a Federal government that weak just would not work. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. My question is what changes have occurred since the 1780’s that would make this form of a weak Federal government work in the world we now live in with the advances in communication and transportation? The world has dramatically changed. I don’t deny that at all. But what are these changes that now require a weak Federal government in the global economy we now live in?

In my opinion, there are certain people that want us to return to our borders and totally isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. I’d appreciate an example of a working model somewhere that that has been successful. The nation currently known as the “hermit nation” is North Korea. Is that the model the isolationists want? Many are too young to remember Albania as it was. Or are they looking more to a Somalia model? Maybe Japan before Perry’s visit? I’m just not sure what model they envision as working for us. Or are they being pure idealists to the point that they really don’t have a model based on history? We need idealists, but pragmatists make the world go around and create jobs.

We have been the world’s policeman since World War II. That is expensive and other nations have taken advantage of that fact to keep their national budgets lower than they would have had to if they had paid for their defense. I think a world where there is not a policeman but where everyone has to provide for their own defense is a more volatile world and we could have seen many more wars, but that is just supposition. The point I actually want to make with this thought is that if we no longer spend the money to remain powerful enough to be the world’s policeman, we let others get militarily stronger than us. They could impose their will on us. Are we willing to pay that price?

In my opinion, our strength has come from trade with the rest of the world. That keeps our people working. If we close out borders and stop trading with the rest of the world, where do our jobs come from? Where do we get those rare earths and other resources necessary for our modern technology?

People look at Foreign Aid as a free give-away. I look at it as we are buying something with it. What we are buying might be better support for our military such as supply lines, political support for our policies, access to markets for our businesses, raw products for our industries, or something else. I think a look at each element of our foreign aid is legitimate to see if we think we are getting value for what we are spending, but a blanket “stop all foreign aid” is way too broad and does not look at the individual consequences.

I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to campaign promises. People have to say certain things to get the nomination, and then they have to say different things to win the election. That’s one reason Romney wants to get the nomination sewed up so he can start saying things that will help him win the general election and quit saying things that will hurt his chances in November. That is an advantage Obama has had. I expect the poll numbers to become less favorable to Obama once Romney can get to a general election campaign instead of a nominating campaign.

I try to look at what they have done when they are in office rather than what they say they will do. What are their principles based on what they have actually done and are they pragmatic enough to get something accomplished while standing behind their general principles. I’ll admit one of my disappointments was Bush 41. He had the resume and experience to really be a great president, but he sold out his principles to the Reaganites for their support so he could get the job and was honest enough to pretty much stay bought. I know “Read my lips” but I think a big reason he lost the reelection was that he did not live up to his core principles but tried to live up to someone else’s.

I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind by posting this. That’s not my goal. My goal is to hopefully get a very few people to actually think for themselves. Having fun tweaking a few people’s noses is just a side benefit.

 

[chickened]

Njikki1, these discussions are not to change any of our minds. It is extremely rare anyone that cares enough to post on here can have their mind changed. We already know the “facts” and are not budging no matter what anyone else says. As long as we stay relatively civil toward each other, these threads can be fun, a little informative, and sometimes quite amusing. I personally thought this line was hilarious. “Moderate translates to no principles.” Doesn’t that tell you a whole lot about the author? The only people that might change their minds are the few readers that have not yet totally made up their minds and are trying to determine their positions. Other than just having fun with each other, those are the people we are talking to.
Our founding fathers set up a form of government in a different world. They had just fought a war and realized that there were several other countries out there that were militarily stronger than them and had designs on our territory. We could not have fought an extended war overseas, just a defensive war and maybe that would have been rough. Consider the War of 1812. We had a whole continent to try to settle. Our prosperity was based on trade. The Barbary Pirates incident tells us about that. Even then we understood that we could not be total isolationists. But the world was different.
I’ll also mention that the Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal government. We had tried the Articles of Confederation and very quickly realized that a Federal government that weak just would not work. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. My question is what changes have occurred since the 1780’s that would make this form of a weak Federal government work in the world we now live in with the advances in communication and transportation? The world has dramatically changed. I don’t deny that at all. But what are these changes that now require a weak Federal government in the global economy we now live in?
In my opinion, there are certain people that want us to return to our borders and totally isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. I’d appreciate an example of a working model somewhere that that has been successful. The nation currently known as the “hermit nation” is North Korea. Is that the model the isolationists want? Many are too young to remember Albania as it was. Or are they looking more to a Somalia model? Maybe Japan before Perry’s visit? I’m just not sure what model they envision as working for us. Or are they being pure idealists to the point that they really don’t have a model based on history? We need idealists, but pragmatists make the world go around and create jobs.
We have been the world’s policeman since World War II. That is expensive and other nations have taken advantage of that fact to keep their national budgets lower than they would have had to if they had paid for their defense. I think a world where there is not a policeman but where everyone has to provide for their own defense is a more volatile world and we could have seen many more wars, but that is just supposition. The point I actually want to make with this thought is that if we no longer spend the money to remain powerful enough to be the world’s policeman, we let others get militarily stronger than us. They could impose their will on us. Are we willing to pay that price?
In my opinion, our strength has come from trade with the rest of the world. That keeps our people working. If we close out borders and stop trading with the rest of the world, where do our jobs come from? Where do we get those rare earths and other resources necessary for our modern technology?
People look at Foreign Aid as a free give-away. I look at it as we are buying something with it. What we are buying might be better support for our military such as supply lines, political support for our policies, access to markets for our businesses, raw products for our industries, or something else. I think a look at each element of our foreign aid is legitimate to see if we think we are getting value for what we are spending, but a blanket “stop all foreign aid” is way too broad and does not look at the individual consequences.
I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to campaign promises. People have to say certain things to get the nomination, and then they have to say different things to win the election. That’s one reason Romney wants to get the nomination sewed up so he can start saying things that will help him win the general election and quit saying things that will hurt his chances in November. That is an advantage Obama has had. I expect the poll numbers to become less favorable to Obama once Romney can get to a general election campaign instead of a nominating campaign.
I try to look at what they have done when they are in office rather than what they say they will do. What are their principles based on what they have actually done and are they pragmatic enough to get something accomplished while standing behind their general principles. I’ll admit one of my disappointments was Bush 41. He had the resume and experience to really be a great president, but he sold out his principles to the Reaganites for their support so he could get the job and was honest enough to pretty much stay bought. I know “Read my lips” but I think a big reason he lost the reelection was that he did not live up to his core principles but tried to live up to someone else’s.
I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind by posting this. That’s not my goal. My goal is to hopefully get a very few people to actually think for themselves. Having fun tweaking a few people’s noses is just a side benefit.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

@njik. I've changed my views in the past, which is something I attempt to base on solid arguments, and imagine I will again in the future. Some changes in view have been life altering, and some views that have changed previously seemed set in stone. Generally a large shift in viewpoint occurs gradually however. So, not typically from one exposure to an idea, but from continuously pursuing or being exposed to a topic. McDonald's keeps trying to convince me that I'll love it. That one hasn't worked yet. Again, solid arguments. x)

I'm not opposed to the idea of having my opinion changed, but find many are. More so than what I've experienced in some other countries. I've heard many a person in the US go out of their way to say that changing one's stance is a "weakness". That's a view I see pretty deeply rooted in some veins of our culture. It's a view I used to hold as a kid. A good example of one view that has changed for me. All I can say is that if one doesn't earnestly stop to listen and consider, and instead just focuses on speaking/blocking out alternate views....'discussion' isn't the best word choice for what is happening.