Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Oh stop it. That's not what Romney meant and you know it. He meant that corporations represent people.
From an abstract point of view, sure corporations can marry. Corporations merge all the time.
Oh gawd.
Can corporations marry?
Oh stop it. That's not what Romney meant and you know it. He meant that corporations represent people.
No, that's not what he meant. He meant that under the law, corporations are granted the same rights as people. It's based a SCOTUS decisions from the 1870's that established corporate personhood.
Then to play the silly-ass corporations_are_people trump card, governments_are_people.
Your quote does nothing to defend your claim. Where the money goes after it passes through the fictitious personhood of the corporation is irrelevant.Oh stop it. That's not what Romney meant and you know it. He meant that corporations represent people.
No, that's not what he meant. He meant that under the law, corporations are granted the same rights as people. It's based a SCOTUS decisions from the 1870's that established corporate personhood.
No that's not what he meant.
Corporations are people, my friend, Romney said.
Some people in the front of the audience shouted, No, theyre not!
Of course they are, Romney said. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?
Nice try though.
Mitt Romney says ‘corporations are people’ - The Washington Post
Your quote does nothing to defend your claim. Where the money goes after it passes through the fictitious personhood of the corporation is irrelevant.No, that's not what he meant. He meant that under the law, corporations are granted the same rights as people. It's based a SCOTUS decisions from the 1870's that established corporate personhood.
No that's not what he meant.
Corporations are people, my friend, Romney said.
Some people in the front of the audience shouted, No, theyre not!
Of course they are, Romney said. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?
Nice try though.
Mitt Romney says ‘corporations are people’ - The Washington Post
The reason a corporation can serve as a person and prevent liability by its owners is because it's a fictitious person under the law. Romney certainly knows this as that's part of how is venture capital firm made money.
Then to play the silly-ass corporations_are_people trump card, governments_are_people.
At the very least they are supposed to represent the people. Lincoln said it best: "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...." Now I interpret that as to say that government has a responsibility to represent the desires of their constituents whether that be at the federal, state, or local level. So if the people of Massachusetts want a health care plan then the state government should represent their will and provide one. If the people in Oregon don't want a health care plan, the state government should not provide one.
If as governor, the people of Massachusetts wanted a health care plan, it was Romney's responsibility to respond to the will of his constituents and do what he could to provide one. As president it would be his responsibility to consider the will of the entire nation and respond accordingly.
The will of the entire nation exceeds the states rights doctrine.
Romney if elected will institute some form of nationalized health care system that permits states some power to create and manage them in the several states. Obama, if re-elected, will make sure Obamcare meets any constitutional objection from SCOTUS from top down.
Both ways are constitutional.
Good thread, Blue.
You've got the libtards on one side complaining Romney isn't conservative enough and the Narco-libtards on the other claiming Romney is too liberal.
That's got to be a winner.
Good thread, Blue.
You've got the libtards on one side complaining Romney isn't conservative enough and the Narco-libtards on the other claiming Romney is too liberal.
That's got to be a winner.
You're right.
On another note, has any republican on this board ever made a thread touting Romney's conservative accomplishments or boasted about his ability to cut back gov't or scale back spending?
All I ever hear as the reason to vote for Mitt is his last name isn't Obama, any other reason anyone can think of to vote for him?
Good thread, Blue.
You've got the libtards on one side complaining Romney isn't conservative enough and the Narco-libtards on the other claiming Romney is too liberal.
That's got to be a winner.
You're right.
On another note, has any republican on this board ever made a thread touting Romney's conservative accomplishments or boasted about his ability to cut back gov't or scale back spending?
All I ever hear as the reason to vote for Mitt is his last name isn't Obama, any other reason anyone can think of to vote for him?
Good thread, Blue.
You've got the libtards on one side complaining Romney isn't conservative enough and the Narco-libtards on the other claiming Romney is too liberal.
That's got to be a winner.
Good thread, Blue.
You've got the libtards on one side complaining Romney isn't conservative enough and the Narco-libtards on the other claiming Romney is too liberal.
That's got to be a winner.
You're right.
On another note, has any republican on this board ever made a thread touting Romney's conservative accomplishments or boasted about his ability to cut back gov't or scale back spending?
All I ever hear as the reason to vote for Mitt is his last name isn't Obama, any other reason anyone can think of to vote for him?
Romney isn't a conservative. We conservatives got fed a shit sandwich this year. OK. We need to do a better job of spreading the message and selling conservatism within the GOP.
But Romney has a lot going for him in terms of his ability to work with people and get things done.
Seems to be a reason to vote FOR Obama. The Republicans tend to nominate people who believe in fantasies like "original intent", as if the Constitutional Convention were some kind of Borg hive-mind!
They came to an agreement and chose the words they chose for a specific reason after countless debates on the matter. Are you suggesting we should ignore the purpose and context of those words just so we can interpret them whatever way we feel would suit our personal preferences? What other way is there to interpret them honestly then the original intent?
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.
I see so you are saying we should vote for Romney so he can appoint Supreme court justices who think corporations are people, women doesn't deserve equal pay and or access to preventative health car
