Romney- finally explained by a constitutional expert.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maple, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  2. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    Romney was opposed to a mandate, tried to veto it, but was overridden by the 85% democratic legislature. He wanted to implement a tax reduction for business's and indivduals who purchased their own insurance as he thought this would create an incentive, thereby reducing the burden to the state and taxpayers.
     
  3. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    Mitt Romney | Setting the Record Straight
     
  4. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    You're starting to take on some of the characteristics of your candidate, the way you're flopping around here. Minutes after writing this nonsense, you flipped to lauding Romney's courage in pursuing a mandate:

    The reality, of course, is that Romney vetoed eight provisions in Massachusetts' health reform law and the individual mandate was not among them. He was, at the time, adhering pretty closely to conservative doctrine of the day--as you're doing here, they sold the individual mandate concept as part of their personal responsibility shtick. The rightwing Heritage Foundation came up with it, and the '90s leadership of the GOP (including Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole) were believers in it. That's why you had even far right zealots like Jim DeMint praising the Romney model when it passed a few years ago.

    That's the great irony, isn't it? Romney, the unprincipled technocrat who actually implemented the ideas of the rightwing thoughtleaders and think tanks, now finds his relationship with his party on the rocks because the party itself has few, if any, core principals and shifted abruptly with the political winds. Personally, I think they're a match made in heaven.
     
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    The author isn't a "Constitutional Expert" as you claim. He describes himself as a "Political Junkie", nothing more. But that's OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, myself included.

    The article describes John Hancock "mandating" Militia Membership as Gov. of Massachusetts. So we're supposed to believe that State Militia service (Yesterdays National Guard) "mandated" by the Governor in 1790(?) is the basis for allowing the State run Health Care?

    Hey, of the 55 Constitutional Convention Attendees, 15 owned large Plantations. Think I could use that as a basis to own slaves? See because if the state "mandates" it, it must be ok! :lol:
     
  6. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    That's part of the "real" reason for the Second Amendment. A full time professional standing army was never part of original intent.

    In any case the whole health care package passed by the Obama administration was largely created by conservatives.
     
  7. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    He did not say that he was a constitutional expert, but I can tell you he knows more about the constitution than you do and a mandate is a mandate period, whether it is the government requiring you to purchase a gun and ammunition at your own expense or one that requires you to purchase a health care plan. It is a state's issue................................. not a federal one period................................
     
  8. Vaard
    Offline

    Vaard Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    786
    Thanks Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +97
    every mandate is not equal........


    to compare the mandate of having a militia to defend the country to a mandate requiring people purchase health insurance has got to be one of the weakest attempts to defend romney i have ever seen.......


    hell, by this "logic" the fact that we went form state militias to a standing federal one must mean that federal healthcare is good then.......
     
  9. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    You are dead on right, the people blowing in the political winds are the same people who tout "personal responsibility" yet since Obamacare is so unpopular, which I agree, have now decided to jump on the band wagon for political favor, flip flop on their original positions because they don't have the political courage or conviction to stand behind one of their major platforms, which is "personal responsibility."

    If you don't mandate personal responsibility you will not get personal responsibility from everyone, because their are always those parasites who will gladly let you flip the bill for their irresponsibility. They come in all colors, genders, party affiliations, ages, and income.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  10. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    It was written and created by Lobbyists then passed (excuse me, "deemed") by a treasonous Congress and President. Yes, they are treasonous.

    The political affiliations matter not. In fact they are there to fool people like you and me. INstead of focusing on what they say and do, we're supposed to just pick a side a fight to the death no matter what! "Well, my Maw and Paw voted Democrat (or Republican) so I will too!" Derp! :uhoh3:

    Just because a self professed Conservative said I'd be happier in chains doesn't mean I should go along with it.


    I didn't say he was, YOU DID in the headline of your thread! Derp! :uhoh3:

    Tempted to neg! :lol:
     

Share This Page