Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[thebluefood]

All I can say about Romney is that I trust the guy as far as I can throw him. I don't think he gives 2 craps about the American people and is only running for POTUS b/c, if by chance he wins, it's just another notch on his resume. I've said it before- he comes across as a used car salesman or a televangelist. All talk and no substance.

Agreed, but I'm starting to get the same vote from Barack Obama. Yes, he had to deal with a lot of crap in the second half of his first term, but for reasons already stated, he is also coming off as a phoney. Someone posted a story about Barack Obama from the New York Times awhile ago that shows him as a shrewd lawyer instead of the wide eyed idealist he tries to paint himself as.

[visionary]

Someone posted a story about Barack Obama from the New York Times awhile ago that shows him as a shrewd lawyer instead of the wide eyed idealist he tries to paint himself as.

Does Obama call himself a wide-eyed idealist?
I think that's more the way Romney paints him.

[Duckus]

Can we officially call the Romney Jeep Ad a disaster when Fox News bashes it?

Brutal compilation from this weekend.

[Monte51Coleman]

Good questions. Would like to see the tap-dancing responses, especially from Cantor.

[Mad Mike]

Jesus doesn't love Obama. But it's not a race thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/ryan-says-obam...034033684.html

Ryan says Obama compromises Judeo-Christian values

Yeah, because Jesus would TOTALLY be against social programs for the poor and a tax structure that would that ask the rich to help a little more.

I see your and raise you... .

[Larry Brown #43]

I like this part:

Asked for comment on Ryan's remarks, a Ryan spokesman said he was "talking about issues like religious liberty and Obamacare, topics he has mentioned frequently during the campaign."

So universal healthcare goes against Judeo-Christian values?

Certainly not, and that's not at all what the spokesman is trying to say there. The spokesman specifically said 'religious LIBERTY,' as in protecting one's freedom of religion. Just Google 'religious liberty' and 'Obamacare' if you're not sure what the issues are. I'm sure you're won't agree with the people who have these concerns, and that's perfectly fine--it's your right to disagree with them. I'm just letting you know that there are religious liberty concerns that many people have with respect to Obamacare.

A primary objection comes from Catholics, given the mandate that religiously affiliated employers are forced to pay for contraception, even if it's against that employer's religion to do so. Some feel that this mandate is no different from forcing a Quaker to go to war, a Mormon to drink wine, or an Amish to drive a car.

I don't have the time or the inclination to get into a debate about this HHS mandate, but to make a long story short-- the religious liberty concern--not just among Catholics--goes something like, 'hey, if they can force Catholics to pay for contraception, then they can force me to ____________," and doing ____________ is against my religion."

[Mad Mike]

I'd disagree about the President. Obama extended the Patriot Act and signed the NDAA, which included section 1021, which allows the government to detain any person suspected of being a terrorist indefinitely and without trial.

The fact of the matter is neither party, and neither candidate, has a solid commitment to extend civil liberties for Americans.

Or perhaps the very real existence of terrorism and the reality that attacks can come on the scale of 9/11 or larger, forces rational men to make compromises to protect our first liberty.... LIFE.

[alexey]

...I'm just letting you know that there are religious liberty concerns that many people have with respect to Obamacare.
...

Existence of those concerns is a fact while validity of those concerns still needs to be established.


I do not like the idea of giving religions a way to avoid following our laws. Legislature passes laws. These laws must be followed. If laws are unconstitutional, they should be challenged in court.

We should not be telling religions that it is OK not to follow a law they do not like. Holding religions above the law is an act of endorsement. It is unconstitutional.

[Hersh]

Or perhaps the very real existence of terrorism and the reality that attacks can come on the scale of 9/11 or larger, forces rational men to make compromises to protect our first liberty.... LIFE.

As an Obamacrat, I have some serious concerns about overreach by both parties as it pertains to the line between civil liberties and doing something in the name of protecting liberty. I don't think that makes one irrational to have those concerns.

[Mad Mike]

It sure seems to be a pattern with his supporters on this board. Over the last couple of months, Larry has posted countless charts and graphs to support statements of fact in regards to the economy. The response is to hand-wave them away or to outright ignore them, while repeating the party line over and over.

Romney gets credit for his supposedly brilliant management acumen, it gets refuted by a genuine conservative hero, and it's all lies from a liberal source.

It's transcended empiricism and rationality. To these guys, it's a religion. You may as well be trying to convert them to Islam.

I've been doing a lot of thought over the years on the cult-like way some people support candidates and positions in the face of conflicting reality. As best I can figure, people tend to make these supporting bonds so strong that the position becomes not an external thing but a part of who they are. To divorce themselves from the idea is to cut off a limb.

---------- Post added November-5th-2012 at 05:17 PM ----------

As an Obamacrat, I have some serious concerns about overreach by both parties as it pertains to the line between civil liberties and doing something in the name of protecting liberty. I don't think that makes one irrational to have those concerns.

Oh, it's perfectly rational to have privacy and civil liberty concerns. What is *not* rational IMO, is denying the threat of terrorism to the point that we do not address the need to monitor terrorists within our borders. That's my problem with the far left. Instead of pushing for fixes that would protect liberties while allowing us to find and stop terrorists, they want the tools that we need gone.

By all means, be concerned for civil liberties. All I ask is that the solution does not risk lives.

[JimboDaMan]

Certainly not, and that's not at all what the spokesman is trying to say there. The spokesman specifically said 'religious LIBERTY,' as in protecting one's freedom of religion. Just Google 'religious liberty' and 'Obamacare' if you're not sure what the issues are. I'm sure you're won't agree with the people who have these concerns, and that's perfectly fine--it's your right to disagree with them. I'm just letting you know that there are religious liberty concerns that many people have with respect to Obamacare.

A primary objection comes from Catholics, given the mandate that religiously affiliated employers are forced to pay for contraception, even if it's against that employer's religion to do so. Some feel that this mandate is no different from forcing a Quaker to go to war, a Mormon to drink wine, or an Amish to drive a car.

I don't have the time or the inclination to get into a debate about this HHS mandate, but to make a long story short-- the religious liberty concern--not just among Catholics--goes something like, 'hey, if they can force Catholics to pay for contraception, then they can force me to ____________," and doing ____________ is against my religion."

As a Catholic I am mightily pissed about the church's seemingly deliberate disinformation campaign re the Affordable Care Act. Contrary to what the church encourages people to believe, churches are not forced to do anything re abortion, they have an exemption. Church-operated schools, hospitals, etc. are required to offer health plans including abortion coverage, but as I understand it as an employer the church-operated business does not have to pay extra for that coverage. It is nothing like forcing Mormons to drink or Amish to drive, nobody is forced to have an abortion. It's closer to Quakers paying the same taxes as the rest of us even though some portion funds war, or Amish paying highway tax on a gallon of gasoline if they need one (I dunno, to start a bonfire or something). The Catholic Church abhors abortion and I understand them not wanting to have anything to do with it, but they are spreading a distorted version of the facts are are stretching the concept of restrictions on religious liberty.

[Predicto]

I always find it interesting to see a hardcore disciple of Ayn Rand talk about Judeo-Christian values.

[Jumbo]

<edit> talk about Judeo-Christian values.

My "bull****" alert automatically sounds, I do a more thorough threat-assessment of the crowd if I'm in one, and my hand goes to check my wallet, when I hear that phrase. Once in a great while, it's used by someone who isn't being a tool.

[Larry Brown #43]

As a Catholic...

As a citizen you're certainly entitled to that interpretation of the situtation. It's a complicated issue and I was mainly responding to a poster who seemed to be unaware that there were any religious liberty questions related to Obamacare.

The HHS mandate struck me as a case of the Administration stirring up a hornet's nest unnecessarily. They could have gone forward with 99.99% of the Obamacare plan without throwing this wrinkle into the mix. To me it was a case of 'solving' a problem that didn't exist. Granting a wide, inclusive religious exemption to the mandate would have made Catholics happy, while the vast majority of non-Catholics wouldn't have even noticed or cared that the exemption was granted.

The Bishops tried to meet with the Administration on several occasions, but the Administration would only agree to meet with the Bishops under the understanding that nothing would change. Essentially, the Administration said, "we'd be happy to sit down and have lunch with you, but it would be a waste of our time and yours because we're not going to listen to your concerns. So with that in mind, please let us know if you'd still like to meet."

I promised myself I wouldn't get deep into an HHS mandate debate here, so I'm going to leave you with the blog post below from the USCCB. Again, as a citizen you don't have to agree with this argument. I just think it was completely unnecessary for the Administration to stir up this hornet's nest, and Obama could have enjoyed wide Catholic support for Obamacare if he hadn't gone down this particular road.

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/...ould-know.html

[GibbsFactor]

Or perhaps the very real existence of terrorism and the reality that attacks can come on the scale of 9/11 or larger, forces rational men to make compromises to protect our first liberty.... LIFE.

Sorry, just had to

---------- Post added November-5th-2012 at 01:38 PM ----------

I always find it interesting to see a hardcore disciple of Ayn Rand talk about Judeo-Christian values.

There are many paleo-conservatives that align themselves with her.