If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney, Here It Is

[VaYank5150]

I never said that...but he sure aint a flaming, socialist liberal like Obama. We already know what kind of justices Obama will nominate: Kagan and Sotomayer. Do you think his future nominations would be any different? Someone on another thread suggested Gloria Alred.....honestly, it would not shock me.

And based on Romneycare, what sort of appointments would Mitt make? Not quite as flaming perhaps? Smoldering?

Oh good God. Romney had a state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do. Romney chose correctly.

I won't say what Romney's appointments would be but I can tell you what they won't be: Kagan, Sotomayer.....Alred.

So....all of those times when Romney counted Romneycare as some huge achievement of his, he was lying??? He was against it the whole while? So, he was against it before he was for it, but now that he is the GOP Presidential candidate, he is against it, again????

 

[Dr.Drock]

I never said that...but he sure aint a flaming, socialist liberal like Obama. We already know what kind of justices Obama will nominate: Kagan and Sotomayer. Do you think his future nominations would be any different? Someone on another thread suggested Gloria Alred.....honestly, it would not shock me.

And based on Romneycare, what sort of appointments would Mitt make? Not quite as flaming perhaps? Smoldering?

Oh good God. Romney had a state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do. Romney chose correctly.

I won't say what Romney's appointments would be but I can tell you what they won't be: Kagan, Sotomayer.....Alred.

So we should elect Romney cuz he'll bend if there's a majority liberal congress? You already have a built in excuse for him passing RomneyCare, oops I mean ObamaCare.

 

[BluePhantom]

And based on Romneycare, what sort of appointments would Mitt make? Not quite as flaming perhaps? Smoldering?

Oh good God. Romney had a state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do. Romney chose correctly.

I won't say what Romney's appointments would be but I can tell you what they won't be: Kagan, Sotomayer.....Alred.

So....all of those times when Romney counted Romneycare as some huge achievement of his, he was lying??? He was against it the whole while? So, he was against it before he was for it, but now that he is the GOP Presidential candidate, he is against it, again????

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh good God. Romney had a state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do. Romney chose correctly.

I won't say what Romney's appointments would be but I can tell you what they won't be: Kagan, Sotomayer.....Alred.

So....all of those times when Romney counted Romneycare as some huge achievement of his, he was lying??? He was against it the whole while? So, he was against it before he was for it, but now that he is the GOP Presidential candidate, he is against it, again????

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

Sad that you agree with him that it was a great achievement for Massachusetts.

 

[BluePhantom]

So we should elect Romney cuz he'll bend if there's a majority liberal congress? You already have a built in excuse for him passing RomneyCare, oops I mean ObamaCare.

If Congress can override his veto he had better damn well attempt to negotiate a position that is more palatable for Republicans. If he just gives Congress a one finger salute and watches helplessly as they override his veto, what does that accomplish? It accomplishes ultra-liberal policy.

 

[VaYank5150]

Oh good God. Romney had a state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do. Romney chose correctly.

I won't say what Romney's appointments would be but I can tell you what they won't be: Kagan, Sotomayer.....Alred.

So....all of those times when Romney counted Romneycare as some huge achievement of his, he was lying??? He was against it the whole while? So, he was against it before he was for it, but now that he is the GOP Presidential candidate, he is against it, again????

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

So.....Romney was FOR Romenycare? If so, why did you list the whole "state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do" bit???

 

[Dr.House]

0bama's track record proves he's a massive, liberal, ultra-leftist.....

Romney's track record proves he's a massive, liberal, ultra-leftist.....

It is funny as hell to watch all of these "conservative" posters now attempt to rally around Mitt Romney....I wonder if they know just how stupid they look, based on their previous Tea Bagger displays??

It's always funny when an 0bama fluffer such as yourself makes reference to the Tea Party that way....

BTW, I made no reference to Romney....

 

[dblack]

Be afraid. That's the main thing.

 

[konradv]

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

How does that work? Are people in different states different species? Are we to believe medicine in MA doesn't work the same as in AZ? Is it a different economic system? With regard to healthcare, what possible difference could there be?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So we should elect Romney cuz he'll bend if there's a majority liberal congress? You already have a built in excuse for him passing RomneyCare, oops I mean ObamaCare.

If Congress can override his veto he had better damn well attempt to negotiate a position that is more palatable for Republicans. If he just gives Congress a one finger salute and watches helplessly as they override his veto, what does that accomplish? It accomplishes ultra-liberal policy.

I got a crazy idea, do what's best for americans, not republicans. If that means not pass a huge healthcare bill, then don't.

Don't worry I know you aren't the exception you're the majority, the whole reason why the republican party is still so huge is because of pseudo-conservatives giving republicans a pass on the liberal things they do. Nothing new here.

 

[pvsi.]

Justice Antonin Scalia: 76 years old
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 75 years old
Justice Clarence Thomas: 64 years old
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 79 years old
Justice Stephen Breyer: 73 years old

In the next four years the president may be replacing any or all of those Supreme Court Justices. If Obama is elected they will be replaced with liberal, activist justices in the mold of Justices Kagan and Sotomayer who will allow the liberals to dominate the court for decades.

You may not be overjoyed about Romney, but I would encourage you to ask yourself who you would trust to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will maintain the balance and integrity of the judicial branch: Romney or Obama (who has already given us Kagan and Sotomayer).



List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As someone who hates Obama and the rest of Washington communist scum, I say trolololololl

 

[BluePhantom]

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

So.....Romney was FOR Romenycare? If so, why did you list the whole "state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do" bit???

I would say Romney is probably very proud of Romneycare and he should be. The people of Massachusetts wanted something done and as governor it was his job to respond to the will of the people. The State legislature was going to take action and as I said before he had the two choices I mentioned before. It seems pretty pointless to propose a conservative plan to a body that is 80% liberal dontcha think?

According to the reports 62% of the people in Massachusetts support the plan. Good for them and good for him. He responded to the will of his constituents and engaged in effective tactics instead of rowing a boat against a tidal wave. Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently. I don't see a whole lot of conflict here.

 

[sealybobo]

Justice Antonin Scalia: 76 years old
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 75 years old
Justice Clarence Thomas: 64 years old
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 79 years old
Justice Stephen Breyer: 73 years old

In the next four years the president may be replacing any or all of those Supreme Court Justices. If Obama is elected they will be replaced with liberal, activist justices in the mold of Justices Kagan and Sotomayer who will allow the liberals to dominate the court for decades.

You may not be overjoyed about Romney, but I would encourage you to ask yourself who you would trust to appoint justices to the Supreme Court that will maintain the balance and integrity of the judicial branch: Romney or Obama (who has already given us Kagan and Sotomayer).



List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have the balls to say this after Citizens United? Do you want to completely hand over our country to the top 1%?

This thread should be titled, "if you only need one reason to vote for Obama".

 

[BluePhantom]

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

How does that work? Are people in different states different species? Are we to believe medicine in MA doesn't work the same as in AZ? Is it a different economic system? With regard to healthcare, what possible difference could there be?

because the people in Massachusetts are mostly liberal and want liberal solution. The people in Arizona are mostly conservative and want conservative solutions. Yes there are different medical needs for people who live in Arizona vs. people who live in Massachusetts as well. You have far more retirees in Arizona and as a result there will be more focus on elderly care. You have a different climate which will create medical problems specific to that climate. I don't think there are a lot of people in Boston that suffer from "Valley Fever". Yes...it's different.

 

[VaYank5150]

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

So.....Romney was FOR Romenycare? If so, why did you list the whole "state legislature that was 80% liberal and intent on passing some form of health care law. He could a) be a hard ass and watch an ultra-liberal bill get passed over his veto, or b) get involved in the process and attempt to minimize the damage that the left was going to do" bit???

I would say Romney is probably very proud of Romneycare and he should be. The people of Massachusetts wanted something done and as governor it was his job to respond to the will of the people. The State legislature was going to take action and as I said before he had the two choices I mentioned before. It seems pretty pointless to propose a conservative plan to a body that is 80% liberal dontcha think?

According to the reports 62% of the people in Massachusetts support the plan. Good for them and good for him. He responded to the will of his constituents and engaged in effective tactics instead of rowing a boat against a tidal wave. Is it good for Massachusetts? They apparently think so. So Romney did his job.

Will it be good for the entire United States? Absolutely not and Romney has said so consistently. I don't see a whole lot of conflict here.

So, help me understand. If Romney is some "conservative", why the hell would he want to be Governor of such a liberal state? And why would he run during a time when he had such a liberal legislature.

And....if it was SO good for MA, why wouldn't it be good for other states?

 

[VaYank5150]

Not at all. It was a great achievement....for Massachusetts; not for the rest of the nation. What is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Arizona. What is good for Florida is not always good for Oregon. Romney has made this point several times and he's absolutely correct.

How does that work? Are people in different states different species? Are we to believe medicine in MA doesn't work the same as in AZ? Is it a different economic system? With regard to healthcare, what possible difference could there be?

because the people in Massachusetts are mostly liberal and want liberal solution. The people in Arizona are mostly conservative and want conservative solutions. Yes there are different medical needs for people who live in Arizona vs. people who live in Massachusetts as well. You have far more retirees in Arizona and as a result there will be more focus on elderly care. You have a different climate which will create medical problems specific to that climate. I don't think there are a lot of people in Boston that suffer from "Valley Fever". Yes...it's different.

So...it's all about politics, and has nothing to do with healthcare, really?

 

[Avorysuds]

Sweet, so vote Mitt because there has to be something better than Obama somewhere in that guy... LOL... Ok, to be fair it' not that there is even 1 thing that is better about Mitt than Obama, it's that Might put someone else that people like into power. Man the Republican party is over lol.

 

[8537]

Corporations are people.

Oh gawd.

Can corporations marry?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice Antonin Scalia: 76 years old
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 75 years old
Justice Clarence Thomas: 64 years old
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 79 years old
Justice Stephen Breyer: 73 years old]

Romney will nominate moderate slightly right of center future justices, neither wild liberals nor crazies like Thomas and Alito.

A Romney presidency is exactly what we need.

 

[BluePhantom]

How does that work? Are people in different states different species? Are we to believe medicine in MA doesn't work the same as in AZ? Is it a different economic system? With regard to healthcare, what possible difference could there be?

because the people in Massachusetts are mostly liberal and want liberal solution. The people in Arizona are mostly conservative and want conservative solutions. Yes there are different medical needs for people who live in Arizona vs. people who live in Massachusetts as well. You have far more retirees in Arizona and as a result there will be more focus on elderly care. You have a different climate which will create medical problems specific to that climate. I don't think there are a lot of people in Boston that suffer from "Valley Fever". Yes...it's different.

So...it's all about politics, and has nothing to do with healthcare, really?

no it has to do with healthcare as well. For example: my wife has severe rheumatoid arthritis and my daughter has asthma. When we lived in Arizona it was easier on my wife because the climate was hot and more consistent than the cold, rapidly changing climate she now experiences in Oregon. As a result her treatment plan in Oregon has been far more aggressive than it was in Arizona. The exact opposite is true for my daughter. In Arizona she really struggled with her asthma because there was more pollution and there was a lot of dust and dirt in the air. In Oregon there is less pollution and the rain pretty much washes away anything floating around that causes her problems. As a result her treatment in Oregon is far less aggressive than it was in Arizona.

The population of elderly in Oregon is far less than Arizona so Arizona will face a greater financial burden for state sponsored care than Oregon. It's completely different. A plan that works great for Oregon's needs and government structure would likely be a disaster for Arizona and vice versa.