Romney Vetos Kosher Meals To Elderly

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Mar 30, 2011
10,374
1,015
140
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion
Balser and others describe the vetoes — nearly 800 in all — that Romney wielded during his governorship as evidence that puts the lie to his campaign’s bipartisan claims.

“The one I was most closely involved in was Romney’s rejection of funding for kosher meals in nursing homes. It applied to only a few hundred people; there wasn’t a huge amount of money involved,” Balser said.

“We saw it as a question of religious freedom and appealed to Romney on that basis, thinking he would surely come around. But his veto stood — and we eventually were able to use the Massachusetts supermajority to overturn his decision.”

U.S. election: Romney held in disdain in his home state - thestar.com

I got a feeling Romney is the kinda guy that would send pork dinners to starving Muslims.
 
Definition of a Liberal

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy
 
Definition of a Liberal

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

Did you read it? it wouldn't have cost that much and social security is not "your money" people work hard for THEIR money.

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."
 
it wouldn't have cost that much...

My goodness how many times have we heard that?! Pretty soon, all the programs and entitlements that 'don't cost much' end up costing a whole hell of a lot.

If the cost was so minor, certainly charity could step in and you wouldn't have to forcibly take the money to fund it.
 
it wouldn't have cost that much...

My goodness how many times have we heard that?! Pretty soon, all the programs and entitlements that 'don't cost much' end up costing a whole hell of a lot.

If the cost was so minor, certainly charity could step in and you wouldn't have to forcibly take the money to fund it.

It would cost a lot less money than Romney has saved with his tax avoidance.
 
Balser and others describe the vetoes — nearly 800 in all — that Romney wielded during his governorship as evidence that puts the lie to his campaign’s bipartisan claims.

“The one I was most closely involved in was Romney’s rejection of funding for kosher meals in nursing homes. It applied to only a few hundred people; there wasn’t a huge amount of money involved,” Balser said.

“We saw it as a question of religious freedom and appealed to Romney on that basis, thinking he would surely come around. But his veto stood — and we eventually were able to use the Massachusetts supermajority to overturn his decision.”

U.S. election: Romney held in disdain in his home state - thestar.com

I got a feeling Romney is the kinda guy that would send pork dinners to starving Muslims.

There wasn't any detail about the bill in the article. Did it also include funding for halal meals for Muslims? How about ahimsa meals for Hindus? I-tal meals for Rastafarians? Lacto-ovo meals for 7th Day Adventists?

If not, why should he have signed a bill giving preference to a single religion? Doesn't that violate the separation of church & state?
 
it wouldn't have cost that much...

My goodness how many times have we heard that?! Pretty soon, all the programs and entitlements that 'don't cost much' end up costing a whole hell of a lot.

If the cost was so minor, certainly charity could step in and you wouldn't have to forcibly take the money to fund it.

It would cost a lot less money than Romney has saved with his tax avoidance.

Non sequitur. Try to focus...

That said, apparently the IRS disagrees with you. But you know better, right? :cuckoo:
 
it wouldn't have cost that much...

My goodness how many times have we heard that?! Pretty soon, all the programs and entitlements that 'don't cost much' end up costing a whole hell of a lot.

If the cost was so minor, certainly charity could step in and you wouldn't have to forcibly take the money to fund it.

A $trillion here, a $trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
 
We all have choices.

Correct, you have the choice to accept charity or not. You seem to believe you have the choice to take what doesn't belong to you. Who taught you that?!

right , and a person has a choice between being caring or being inhumane.

Correct. Being charitable is demonstrating you care. Feel free to give until it hurts.

Stealing from others, regardless of what you do with the money, is inhumane.
 
Definition of a Liberal

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

Did you read it? it wouldn't have cost that much and social security is not "your money" people work hard for THEIR money.

How exactly was Romney vetoing Social Security?
 
Definition of a Liberal

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

Nice evasion. Don't want too touch this one, do you???
 

Forum List

Back
Top