View Poll Results: MT 2012 Presidential Poll:
President Obama
11
21.57%
GOP candidate
31
60.78%
Third party candidate
9
17.65%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll
Who whould you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
02-01-2012, 10:50 PM
#101
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
That would be....nobody.
Nobody has the ***** or inclination (no pun intended..OK maybe sorta) to handle that issue except maybe Obama. He has other priorities. Which sucks, because I would be a lot happier if he was focused on something like that instead of feeding me to Aetna and finding some BS green job for me to do that results in my having no higher cognitive functioning and/or trying to neuter my 2nd amendment rights.
Nobody has the ***** or inclination (no pun intended..OK maybe sorta) to handle that issue except maybe Obama. He has other priorities. Which sucks, because I would be a lot happier if he was focused on something like that instead of feeding me to Aetna and finding some BS green job for me to do that results in my having no higher cognitive functioning and/or trying to neuter my 2nd amendment rights.
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 06:01 AM
#103
Soooo... we've got:
I guess I'll wait until blaen gets in here. He's talked enough smack about Romney that I assume he has a list of things that are bad about him.
- Romney might be worse than Obama - with no definition regarding in what ways he might be worse
- He might get more done than other options, which would be bad, but no specifics on what types of things he might get done that would be bad
- A Republican president might mean more Democrat congresspeople in the future
I guess I'll wait until blaen gets in here. He's talked enough smack about Romney that I assume he has a list of things that are bad about him.
I've talked at length about my problems with Gingrich, it is the same problems with Romney.
Dude's a fracking hypocrite whose word means nothing.
I am a rabid Ron Paul supporter not because of his stances (I absolutely despise some of Paul's stances) but because he's been consistent and not a hypocrite. Someone who is truthful and holds a consistent stance gets my automatic support.
You'd think it's easy to get my support, but ------' hell, it's apparently not.
That, and quite frankly, minus the retard-right hot button issues (Islam, herp derp) that he deep throats like a two-bit -----, he may as well be identical to Obama politically.
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 12:36 PM
#104
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Also, I would think between things like TOD accounts, beneficiary designations, living wills and durable powers of attorney, a properly prepared same-sex couple could circumvent most of the main challenges? I'm not well-versed in the medical decisions area, though, and whether the above is superceded by "not being family."
Something like, "based on his previous voting record on the following, I would not support him over Obama" or "given his track record in the private sector, I could not support him over Obama."
I wonder if he is as identical to Obama as you say or more centrist? Sort of somewhere in between Obama on the left and Paul on the right. For example, he may believe that the Earth is trending warmer and that people contribute to that - but cap and trade legislation and a more active EPA are not proper responses.
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 12:47 PM
#106
I wonder if he is as identical to Obama as you say or more centrist? Sort of somewhere in between Obama on the left and Paul on the right. For example, he may believe that the Earth is trending warmer and that people contribute to that - but cap and trade legislation and a more active EPA are not proper responses.
I doubt Romney can be a Republican and "be more centrist" at the same time.
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 01:29 PM
#107
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
From what I have been able to find on his stated positions and voting record (tough to apply since he was a Governor and not a congressperson affecting Federal legislation), his position appears to be what I stated:
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.
Can you give some examples of his voting and legislative history (and how they weigh against things like the Obamacare, the push for card check, the auto bailouts, etc) that make him center-right?
I don't understand that statement. Did you mean you "doubt Romney can be the Republican nominee" and be more centrist?
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.
I don't understand that statement. Did you mean you "doubt Romney can be the Republican nominee" and be more centrist?
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 01:34 PM
#108
The auto bailouts started in the Bush admin ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html ), so they are at the very least centrist, if not right. Etc. etc.
I don't understand that statement. Did you mean you "doubt Romney can be the Republican nominee" and be more centrist?
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 01:34 PM
#109
From what I have been able to find on his stated positions and voting record (tough to apply since he was a Governor and not a congressperson affecting Federal legislation), his position appears to be what I stated:
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.
he thinks the Earth is warming and humans likely contribute to it, but that legislation like cap & trade and EPA restrictions are not answers.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a carbon-trading pact among Northeastern states that, like his health care bill, served as a potential model for a national version. Romney even said of the plan, “I am convinced it is good for business.” Of carbon emissions in general, Romney said, “These carbon-emissions limits will provide real and immediate progress.” But in just a few short years, Romney’s cap-and-trade feelings shifted. “We’re going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don’t have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That’s why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don’t call it ‘America warming.’ They call it ‘global warming.’”
Reply
0
0
02-02-2012, 02:29 PM
#110
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I would probably still argue he is "center Left," but now I am beginning to wonder how useful those labels are without better definition.
And he seems much more likely to push for military aggression versus Obama.
He does seem to have a pretty strong business record as a consultant, then PE manager... Maybe a Romney presidency + Conservative House + mixed Senate = minimal damage?
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 12:48 AM
#112
You could certainly argue that the bank and auto bailouts were to the left, regardless of whose administration they were issued under, but the point is taken.
I would probably still argue he is "center Left," but now I am beginning to wonder how useful those labels are without better definition.
I would probably still argue he is "center Left," but now I am beginning to wonder how useful those labels are without better definition.
Sheesh. This guy really has been for-before-he-was-against a lot of issues including environmental regulation/legislation, abortion legality, gay rights, and gun control as far as I can find.
And he seems much more likely to push for military aggression versus Obama.
He does seem to have a pretty strong business record as a consultant, then PE manager... Maybe a Romney presidency + Conservative House + mixed Senate = minimal damage?
And he seems much more likely to push for military aggression versus Obama.
He does seem to have a pretty strong business record as a consultant, then PE manager... Maybe a Romney presidency + Conservative House + mixed Senate = minimal damage?
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 06:25 AM
#113
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
No, I think that would be maximal damage. The last thing we want as a President is someone who is for taking more of our rights. Obama and Bush did enough damage - if you throw someone like Romney or Gingrich there, for the very reasons you outlined....We don't need yet-another-Bush, we need a Paul, or even just an extremist president to get people to get angry and wake up and vote.
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 06:30 AM
#114
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
Sheesh. This guy really has been for-before-he-was-against a lot of issues including environmental regulation/legislation, abortion legality, gay rights, and gun control as far as I can find.
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 09:57 AM
#115
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
You believe, if elected President of the USA (vs Governor of Mass), Romney will restrict the 2nd Ammendment and...?
As it stands now, is there anything in the Constitution that covers marriage? If there isn't, then not allowing the expansion of the legal authorities allowed by marriage to same-sex couples is a failure to expand more than a restriction.
Give me some specific examples of how he would "[take] more of our rights" as POTUSA?
As it stands now, is there anything in the Constitution that covers marriage? If there isn't, then not allowing the expansion of the legal authorities allowed by marriage to same-sex couples is a failure to expand more than a restriction.
Give me some specific examples of how he would "[take] more of our rights" as POTUSA?
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 10:14 AM
#116
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
The Republican's created the universal mandate in 1989 via the Heritage think tank, and it has shown up continually in Republican-or-Republican supported plans untill 2007. 2009 is the first time they decided they hated the universal mandate. (I am assuming you are referring to the individual fine when you say universal mandate, Republicans had it in health care proposals they created originally and then supported later up untill 2007. It was only once Obama became president that it became repugnant to them.)
First off, the Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation, do not speak for all Republicans.
Yes, it is true, a concept of some sort of health mandiate steamed from a few indiviudals working at the Hertage Foundation tasked with the job to come up with new innovative solutions.
The Heritage idea itself was a a mandate for coverage for catastrophic illnesses, an "Oh ----" insurance mandate if you will. Not a comprehensive coverage plan like the current Bill; one must take a huge leap to link these two together.
The ONLY thing that the Obamacare Bill and the orginial Heritage Foundation concept have in common is the idea of forcing an individual to purcahse something.
The Heritage Foundation, and ALL the original supporters of the idea, all refute the idea, and all [still in power] have voted against Obamacare.
Saying that the Heritage Foundation has ANYTHING to do with the current Bill is like Al Gore saying he invented the internet. Plus, the idea of some sort of government run healthcare system was argued by Jefferson and Hamilton back in the 1700s.
now watch this:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
Reply
0
0
02-03-2012, 10:44 AM
#117
No, in this case you have a really hard time with the facts. Since I'm going to have to spoonfeed you, by god, fine.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1770_1993.pdf
This was a bill written in 1993 by Senator John H. Chafee, a Republican. It received 2 Democrat and 18 Republican sponsors in support. It is the bill I most frequently refer to when I talk about Obamacare.
Since I have a strong hunch that you have better things to do then read that incredibly dense bill, here's a simple English version of it:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...form-bill.aspx
The argument "But this is SO DIFFERENT from Obamacare" holds about as much water as you trying to argue that being raped and killed by Charles Manson is superior to being raped and killed by Jack the Ripper. It's an argument focusing on truly insignificant differences (OMG, one wanted to use vouchers IN LIEU of expanding the Medicaid eligibility!!!! NOOOOO!!! Wait, you mean it's the same thing with the same desired result? That's unpossible!) while ignoring the substantive similarities between each. Or, to put it in other words, we're being raped and killed with any of the options. I'd hope you are more worried about the act of raping and killing then who the raper is.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1743_1993.pdf
This was a bill introduced in 1993. It had 24 Republican cosponsors and widespread Republican support in Congress.
Let's go to 2007.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s...l_334_2007.pdf
This was a bill introduced in 2007. It had a Republican author, and it had 9 Republican sponsors, 7 Democrat, and 1 Independent. You'll note that even the 2007 bill had more Republican sponsors than any other party.
I'm reserving this post to edit as I find more english-readable versions of these bills, so be aware ninja edits are inc.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1770_1993.pdf
This was a bill written in 1993 by Senator John H. Chafee, a Republican. It received 2 Democrat and 18 Republican sponsors in support. It is the bill I most frequently refer to when I talk about Obamacare.
Since I have a strong hunch that you have better things to do then read that incredibly dense bill, here's a simple English version of it:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...form-bill.aspx
The argument "But this is SO DIFFERENT from Obamacare" holds about as much water as you trying to argue that being raped and killed by Charles Manson is superior to being raped and killed by Jack the Ripper. It's an argument focusing on truly insignificant differences (OMG, one wanted to use vouchers IN LIEU of expanding the Medicaid eligibility!!!! NOOOOO!!! Wait, you mean it's the same thing with the same desired result? That's unpossible!) while ignoring the substantive similarities between each. Or, to put it in other words, we're being raped and killed with any of the options. I'd hope you are more worried about the act of raping and killing then who the raper is.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._1743_1993.pdf
This was a bill introduced in 1993. It had 24 Republican cosponsors and widespread Republican support in Congress.
Let's go to 2007.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s...l_334_2007.pdf
This was a bill introduced in 2007. It had a Republican author, and it had 9 Republican sponsors, 7 Democrat, and 1 Independent. You'll note that even the 2007 bill had more Republican sponsors than any other party.
I'm reserving this post to edit as I find more english-readable versions of these bills, so be aware ninja edits are inc.
Last edited by blaen99; 02-03-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Reply
0
0
