Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#451
#451
CSpindizzy said:
Even before that. I spent some time in Boston back in 2004 and MAGOP staff that I spent time with told me many stories of positions Romney took to ensure he had little nuggets to run for higher office. He took liberal positions to get elected and to get certain things passed by the Dem majority. And when he needed conservative positions he could suddenly turn right knowing they would never be passed. It was convenience for him. He could be both when it suited him. This way no matter what came up he could show a record of a conservative and one of a liberal. And now in this election with him being the only Republican left, conservatives can overlook his liberal record because he is the only one left and conservatives hate Obama so much they will do anything to get him out. Romney is no principled candidate. He is a survivalist. If anything this sort of candidate is far worse than the type we currently have in office. Look at many of his own statements - note the one about him hiring an illegal. Remember, he's running for office for Pete's sake? Republicans have erred in elevating this guy. I don't think he wins but if he does, conservatives will lose on many fronts.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting perspective. I suppose that's one of the dangers of a "conservative" who governed a liberal state like MA
 
#452
#452
The reason the op-Ed is so damaging to Romney is that he was trying to set himself up to run again in 2012. He was promoting a federal individual mandate and laying the groundwork to say in this campaign that's the way to go.

Altering course on policy now will sound just like what it is - pure politically based retraction of his comments in 2009.

Romney cannot carry the flag on this for the GOP.
 
#453
#453
Well his whole argument of "success" as a conservative in MA was achieving what he did (not sure what exactly) without raising taxes. He was already cornered on raising 'fees'. But if the argument comes down to this being taxes then he 1)becomes no different than Obama on the 'largest tax increase in ____ history' and 2)a liar on achievements without raising taxes when this would mean he did raise taxes.
 
#454
#454
CSpindizzy said:
Well his whole argument of "success" as a conservative in MA was achieving what he did (not sure what exactly) without raising taxes. He was already cornered on raising 'fees'. But if the argument comes down to this being taxes then he 1)becomes no different than Obama on the 'largest tax increase in ____ history' and 2)a liar on achievements without raising taxes when this would mean he did raise taxes.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is that complicated.

Romney proposed an individual mandate and it passed and is working. Romney wrote editorial calling on Obama to adopt an individual mandate at federal level.

Obama did so.

Romney saying during the campaign that its his first order of business to repeal the very thing he told Obama to do just makes Romney look retarded.
 
#455
#455
lawgator1 said:
I don't think it is that complicated.

Romney proposed an individual mandate and it passed and is working. Romney wrote editorial calling on Obama to adopt an individual mandate at federal level.

Obama did so.

Romney saying during the campaign that its his first order of business to repeal the very thing he told Obama to do just makes Romney look retarded.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it was complicated. I was merely saying you can go deeper and broader to see many various aspects of Romney being a liar and hypocrite on the issue. But in the end, since we're at the point of him being the nominee the Right has to suck it up and roll with the guy just out of spite and hatred for Obama. The problem comes with trying to influence the middle - when the guy has no credibility or substantive alternatives those in the middle are more likely to stick with who is there now.
 
#457
#457
lawgator1 said:
I don't think it is that complicated.
Click to expand...

Me either.

einstein_obamacare.jpg


OBAMATAXMAN.jpg
 
#458
#458
utvolpj said:
then allow those changes to stand on their own. Requiring people to purchase a product is ridiculous expansion of govt
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this was already said, but just in case it wasn't, exactly how long has it been a law to have car insurance? How exactly is this an expansion of government?
 
#459
#459
onefesternation said:
I'm guessing this was already said, but just in case it wasn't, exactly how long has it been a law to have car insurance? How exactly is this an expansion of government?
Click to expand...

buying car insurance is part of the privilege of owning a car, and it is not required if your vehicle is never driven on public roads. It is also not required if you don't own a car.

Why do people continue to look at car insurance as somehow the same thing as the individual mandate?

The expansion of government is coming. Just think of all those people, usually the ones who end up qualifying for the earned income tax credit, who will get subsidized because they can't afford the one-size-fits-all insurance the government is going to force all insurance companies to provide. Add to that the 16 thousand new IRS agents and dozens of new layers of bureaucracy.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?
 
#460
#460
onefesternation said:
I'm guessing this was already said, but just in case it wasn't, exactly how long has it been a law to have car insurance? How exactly is this an expansion of government?
Click to expand...

Don't want to buy car insurance? Don't drive a car.

Don't want to buy health insurance? Pay a massive tax or leave the country.

Do those alternatives sound comparable to you?
 
#461
#461
bamawriter said:
Don't want to buy car insurance? Don't drive a car.

Don't want to buy health insurance? Pay a massive tax or leave the country.

Do those alternatives sound comparable to you?
Click to expand...

Yeah you actually have a option there don't you. That's the whole deal with this thing. I still can't see how they'll ever enforce it well enough. The ones that couldn't afford it then still can't afford it now, nothing has changed in that regard. The people saying if you buy insurance you don't have to pay the tax. Well i expect insurance premiums will be on the rise very soon. So basically you're paying a tax anyway. The people who pay taxes and have health insurance still lose and lose bad in this deal.
 
#462
#462
In the days since the ruling, the Romney camp has been all over the map on this. Romney gave an interview to CBS and it was absolute incoherent gibberish.

Still say they ought to make this about their 12th biggest campaign issue because Romney cannot effectively or credibly criticize the ACA.
 
#464
#464
1) The state versus federal "difference" is meaningless as Romney called on Obama to adopt the plan, nationally.

2) The "no tax" "difference" is a joke. The Mass plan also has the "penalty" provision and in fact Romney has touted it and himself called it a tax.

3) The "no Medicare" difference is ridiculous. Of course his state plan doesn't cut Medicare. Does he really think people are that stupid? You can argue the Medicare cuts, they really don't have anything to do with the individual mandate.

4) The "no price controls" argument is bogus. He's using the phrase as a scare tactic. There are no "price controls" in the Act. Some cost cutting measures, yes. But no price controls.

Only the most gullible would be persuaded by this video.
 
Last edited:
#466
#466
No more to see here. It looks as though the immagration issue is what will decide this race and Romney is way behind in that respect.
 
#468
#468
Can we just scrap both of these clowns and get some real candidates in there? I'm seriously thinking of leaving the POTUS box blank. It's like trying to choose which eye ball you want poked out.
 
#469
#469
Cartervol said:
Can we just scrap both of these clowns and get some real candidates in there? I'm seriously thinking of leaving the POTUS box blank. It's like trying to choose which eye ball you want poked out.
Click to expand...


It has pretty much reached the point where no one is voting for either of them, just against the other guy, and pretty much purely out of spite.

I don't look at either and say I actually want that guy to be the POTUS. I might vote to make a statement about what I think of the other side's selection, and to register my disapproval for their tactics.

And I left that blank intentionally because I think a lot of people would say the same thing, just insert a different name.
 
#470
#470
Cartervol said:
Can we just scrap both of these clowns and get some real candidates in there? I'm seriously thinking of leaving the POTUS box blank. It's like trying to choose which eye ball you want poked out.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way.
I'm not voting for either one.

I do not see a good third party candidate to vote for.
 
#472
#472
Gramps said:
I feel the same way.
I'm not voting for either one.

I do not see a good third party candidate to vote for.
Click to expand...


Since the early 90's the couple that have tried might have had some good ideas, but represented too rapid a pace of change for our system to take. Plus a little bit of craziness.

dancingborrisp1.gif
 
#474
#474
There's only going to be a few states (FLA, OH, VA, CO, etc) where your vote actually has the potential to impact the presidential election. A couple of my kids were getting into it (embarrassingly enough, I've raised at least one of six who would vote for Obama) and suggested that since both lived in TN, it really wasn't worth getting their shorts in a wad trying to convince the other to change their vote. Personally I'm considering moving to VA to establish residency long enough to vote. I might get to put not only Romney in the WH but Allen in the Senate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top