Romney Just Cut His Own Throat

[mudwhistle]

Romney is the biggest two face of any politician I've ever witnessed, and speaking on politicians that's pretty ******* bad.

This guy spent the week wailing on the Church issue when - would ya look at that. It was mandated in his own State as Governor. Not surprising with him.

So the guy that hates two-faced politicians supports Obama.

That makes sense.

 

[driveby]

"******* lazy bastards will have to work longer. Get used to it. "


Yup work until you drop. How embarrassing would that be. What a way to die. Working for $12 an hour at the age of 75 for some slimeball retail outfit. How sick and Pathetic is that? Young people can avoid that by not buying houses, not having kids, and not going to the doctor, ever. Save save save and dont enjoy life. The new american dream.
__________________

Yep, working is for stiffs, the government should take care of all of us, from the cradle to the grave.....

If the government allows you to make it to the cradle of course......

 

[JoeB131]

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

Well, I'm glad you have no interest. The last time someone had this much "lack of interest", I had to get a restraining order.

but anyway... to the point. THere are a lot of things you can do other than forcing old people to keep working past their prime.

1) Make Rich Douchebags pay their fair share. - We are in this mess because surpluses in Social Security were used to cover tax cuts for rich people. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security Trust fund. But it's all in the form of Government bonds that now have to be redeemed.

2) Means Test social security. If you have a mansion in Florida and a house in the north and you are flying back and forth every winter, like a few people in my town did, you probably don't need that check from Social Security- yes, even if you've been paying into it your whole life. The problem with SS is that instead of calling it what it was- a welfare program for the elderly - we pretend that it's a "retirement program", and give payments to people who really don't need them.

I think what you struggle with is humanity and decency. I really have to wonder what someone did to you that makes you so heartless.

 

[G.T.]

Romney is the biggest two face of any politician I've ever witnessed, and speaking on politicians that's pretty ******* bad.

This guy spent the week wailing on the Church issue when - would ya look at that. It was mandated in his own State as Governor. Not surprising with him.

It was mandated BEFORE he took over as Governor. He fought for, and got, an exemption clause added for churches - and charities that are faith based.

Get your facts straight, then post.

Several people have already said this.... and the exemption clause from Mass has been posted at least three times on this board.

Oh, and, fyi: Romney's advisers... the ones that worked with Obama.... they recommended including that clause in the AHA.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

Again.

Obama had the exemption clause, too, but of course you know that's not what we're talking about.

 

[G.T.]

Romney is the biggest two face of any politician I've ever witnessed, and speaking on politicians that's pretty ******* bad.

This guy spent the week wailing on the Church issue when - would ya look at that. It was mandated in his own State as Governor. Not surprising with him.

So the guy that hates two-faced politicians supports Obama.

That makes sense.

I dont support Obama, I come here to point it out when attacks are baseless because I cant stand mindless, factless ass holes, you're on the top of the list. You jumped right about on the 200mil Egypt trip, dumbass. You cant be more deluded than ypou are.

 

[initforme]

"Yep, working is for stiffs, the government should take care of all of us, from the cradle to the grave.....

If the government allows you to make it to the cradle of course...... "

Well then we FORCE companies to keep their higher payed employees longer. Then it works out. SOme of the illbegotten business owners like to get rid of their workers as they think they are smart to replace them with younger, more energetic workers. They are going to have to change their thinking and live with a little, I mean LITTLE, less profits.
__________________

 

[G.T.]

I'd also like to know how the mandate that came WITH RomneyCare, with exemptions for church schools but NOT for Universities and Hospitals, came BEFORE Romney was Governor. It was there beofre, but also written in with Romneycare. Try again. Also its contested that he tried to roll back the mandate.

 

[driveby]

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

Well, I'm glad you have no interest. The last time someone had this much "lack of interest", I had to get a restraining order.

but anyway... to the point. THere are a lot of things you can do other than forcing old people to keep working past their prime.

1) Make Rich Douchebags pay their fair share. - We are in this mess because surpluses in Social Security were used to cover tax cuts for rich people. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security Trust fund. But it's all in the form of Government bonds that now have to be redeemed.

2) Means Test social security. If you have a mansion in Florida and a house in the north and you are flying back and forth every winter, like a few people in my town did, you probably don't need that check from Social Security- yes, even if you've been paying into it your whole life. The problem with SS is that instead of calling it what it was- a welfare program for the elderly - we pretend that it's a "retirement program", and give payments to people who really don't need them.

I think what you struggle with is humanity and decency. I really have to wonder what someone did to you that makes you so heartless.

Restraining orders you had to get against old boyfriends are irrelevant, but anyway....



1) Rich people already pay most of the taxes in this country, how about the millions of people that pay NO income taxes pony up a few dollars, in the interest of fairness.

2) Now the good little marxist wants wealth redistribution to include SS as well.

 

[driveby]

Well then we FORCE companies to keep their higher payed employees longer. __________________

You tell 'em, comrade ...

 

[California Girl]

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

Well, I'm glad you have no interest. The last time someone had this much "lack of interest", I had to get a restraining order.

but anyway... to the point. THere are a lot of things you can do other than forcing old people to keep working past their prime.

1) Make Rich Douchebags pay their fair share. - We are in this mess because surpluses in Social Security were used to cover tax cuts for rich people. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security Trust fund. But it's all in the form of Government bonds that now have to be redeemed.

2) Means Test social security. If you have a mansion in Florida and a house in the north and you are flying back and forth every winter, like a few people in my town did, you probably don't need that check from Social Security- yes, even if you've been paying into it your whole life. The problem with SS is that instead of calling it what it was- a welfare program for the elderly - we pretend that it's a "retirement program", and give payments to people who really don't need them.

I think what you struggle with is humanity and decency. I really have to wonder what someone did to you that makes you so heartless.

Let's review, shall we? I made a post, you responded, I replied... and you think you need a restraining order? Man, you need more than a restraining order, you should check yourself into the nearest mental health facility.... quickly.... because you have lost touch with reality.

All across this forum, I have let your bullshit responses to me go unanswered... you're like a whining 2 year old tugging at my jeans, trying to get my attention.

I'd call you a half wit, but I'm not convinced you've reached the level of half wit yet.

 

[JoeB131]

Lest we forget-

One of the main reasons why they instituted Social Security to start with was to get older workers TO retire.

During the Great Depression, there were too many older workers who were unwilling to quit and make room for younger workers. That's part of the reason FDR started the program. (That and basic humanity and decency).

Now, the thing is, on principle, Romney kind of has a point. When Social Security was first instituted, the averge life expectency for an American was 62, so letting people retire at 65 wasn't that big a deal.

Today, the life expectency is 78. So the system is under strain.

But Romney, typical of his lack of humanity realizes that just because people live to 78 doesn't mean they are going to be productive workers at 70. Quite the contrary. Older workers are often seen as a liability because they can't perform to the same level, have more health issues, etc. And they face more discrmination in the workplace.

WHich is why Romney is such an awful choice. He just doesn't get it.

 

[Katzndogz]

People are living longer. Across the world, countries are raising their retirement ages because their social security programs cannot cope with the numbers. He didn't 'cut his own throat', he told the truth. ******* lazy bastards will have to work longer. Get used to it.

We can't find jobs for the people who want work now... And Mittens wants to make them all work longer?

The people who have the hardest time in a recession like this. Anyone over fifty. Mittens wants to increase the labor pool with a lot of people who are already goign to have a hard time finding work.

Yeah, Mr. "I like to be able to fire people" Obviously has no connection to the real world, or he wouldn't make statements like this.

You are either really stupid or have some other reason for not using Romney's entire quote. Which is surprising because Romney only said what liberals say. If one of those big corporations (like banks) don't treat you right, FIRE THEM.

Either people will have to work longer, OR younger workers will have to kick in a chunk more to support able bodied older people longer. The liberal way is to just figure out a way to lower the life expectancy and get people to die younger.

 

[JoeB131]

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

Well, I'm glad you have no interest. The last time someone had this much "lack of interest", I had to get a restraining order.

but anyway... to the point. THere are a lot of things you can do other than forcing old people to keep working past their prime.

1) Make Rich Douchebags pay their fair share. - We are in this mess because surpluses in Social Security were used to cover tax cuts for rich people. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security Trust fund. But it's all in the form of Government bonds that now have to be redeemed.

2) Means Test social security. If you have a mansion in Florida and a house in the north and you are flying back and forth every winter, like a few people in my town did, you probably don't need that check from Social Security- yes, even if you've been paying into it your whole life. The problem with SS is that instead of calling it what it was- a welfare program for the elderly - we pretend that it's a "retirement program", and give payments to people who really don't need them.

I think what you struggle with is humanity and decency. I really have to wonder what someone did to you that makes you so heartless.

Restraining orders you had to get against old boyfriends are irrelevant, but anyway....

1) Rich people already pay most of the taxes in this country, how about the millions of people that pay NO income taxes pony up a few dollars, in the interest of fairness.

2) Now the good little marxist wants wealth redistribution to include SS as well.

Wow. I mean, you really think calling people gay is a huge insult? Really? You know, they've done studies that show that most homophobes are likely to be latent gays than non-homophobic people.

The rich pay taxes that are less than the amount of the wealth that they control, and that's a large part of the problem. Please don't tell me that Mittens paying 13% tax while working folks pay 25% tax is fair or even sensible.

Means testing isn't about "Marxism". It's about what the program was for. It never should have been about a nice bonus check for people who already are rich. It was meant to keep old people from starving to death when they couldn't work anymore. That's the purpose. But because we Americans don't really like that sort of thing, we had to call it a "retirement program", when in fact, it was nothing of the sort. Rich or poor, you collect more than you paid into it if you live past 72. That might be sensible for a retiree of sensible means, but if you have a mansion, it really doesnt' make sense.

YOu see, I think that Romney is right on the overall principle, that the retirement age might need to go up. But you have to change a lot of other things before you get there.

 

[Truthmatters]

Lest we forget-

One of the main reasons why they instituted Social Security to start with was to get older workers TO retire.

During the Great Depression, there were too many older workers who were unwilling to quit and make room for younger workers. That's part of the reason FDR started the program. (That and basic humanity and decency).

Now, the thing is, on principle, Romney kind of has a point. When Social Security was first instituted, the averge life expectency for an American was 62, so letting people retire at 65 wasn't that big a deal.

Today, the life expectency is 78. So the system is under strain.

But Romney, typical of his lack of humanity realizes that just because people live to 78 doesn't mean they are going to be productive workers at 70. Quite the contrary. Older workers are often seen as a liability because they can't perform to the same level, have more health issues, etc. And they face more discrmination in the workplace.

WHich is why Romney is such an awful choice. He just doesn't get it.

They were not unwilling to quit , they could not afford to quit.

It was work or starve.

Now older people can retire and have some way to not starve.

 

[HUGGY]

Romney Just Cut His Own Throat


Is that another one of those weird Morman cult practices?

 

[California Girl]

People are living longer. Across the world, countries are raising their retirement ages because their social security programs cannot cope with the numbers. He didn't 'cut his own throat', he told the truth. ******* lazy bastards will have to work longer. Get used to it.

We can't find jobs for the people who want work now... And Mittens wants to make them all work longer?

The people who have the hardest time in a recession like this. Anyone over fifty. Mittens wants to increase the labor pool with a lot of people who are already goign to have a hard time finding work.

Yeah, Mr. "I like to be able to fire people" Obviously has no connection to the real world, or he wouldn't make statements like this.

You are either really stupid or have some other reason for not using Romney's entire quote. Which is surprising because Romney only said what liberals say. If one of those big corporationd (like banks) don't treat you right, FIRE THEM.

Either people will have to work longer, OR younger workers will have to kick in a chunk more to support able bodied older people longer. The liberal way is to just figure out a way to lower the life expectancy and get people to die younger.

It's the hysterical hyperbole over rational discussion - par for the course on this board. I would struggle to name 12 posters on this board who have the intellectual honesty to discuss politics.

 

[JoeB131]

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

Well, I'm glad you have no interest. The last time someone had this much "lack of interest", I had to get a restraining order.

but anyway... to the point. THere are a lot of things you can do other than forcing old people to keep working past their prime.

1) Make Rich Douchebags pay their fair share. - We are in this mess because surpluses in Social Security were used to cover tax cuts for rich people. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security Trust fund. But it's all in the form of Government bonds that now have to be redeemed.

2) Means Test social security. If you have a mansion in Florida and a house in the north and you are flying back and forth every winter, like a few people in my town did, you probably don't need that check from Social Security- yes, even if you've been paying into it your whole life. The problem with SS is that instead of calling it what it was- a welfare program for the elderly - we pretend that it's a "retirement program", and give payments to people who really don't need them.

I think what you struggle with is humanity and decency. I really have to wonder what someone did to you that makes you so heartless.

Let's review, shall we? I made a post, you responded, I replied... and you think you need a restraining order? Man, you need more than a restraining order, you should check yourself into the nearest mental health facility.... quickly.... because you have lost touch with reality.

All across this forum, I have let your bullshit responses to me go unanswered... you're like a whining 2 year old tugging at my jeans, trying to get my attention.

I'd call you a half wit, but I'm not convinced you've reached the level of half wit yet.

ooookay, so following me around and negging me, that's not obsessive at all, right?

Yup, you've totally convinced me you don't have a problem. (You are pretty much the only person who negs me. A lot of people- left and right, like what I have to say.)

Frankly, you don't answer me at all. You really think name-calling is a response, but honestly, you rarely make good counter arguments. Again, both folks on the left and right (and I do disagree with both sides, I have no use for people who substitute idealogy for problem solving) do make defenses of their positions.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney Just Cut His Own Throat


Is that another one of those weird Morman cult practices?

Dude, that was SOOOOOOO wrong.

 

[Valerie]

Romney is the biggest two face of any politician I've ever witnessed, and speaking on politicians that's pretty ******* bad.

This guy spent the week wailing on the Church issue when - would ya look at that. It was mandated in his own State as Governor. Not surprising with him.

It is a difficult issue to handle politically speaking but being in the leadership position leaders have to handle complicated issues which are not always so black and white. Mitt acting as Governor in good conscience, chartered what he thought was the correct legal course under the circumstances...

Romney’s campaign has pushed back on this narrative forcefully, pointing to Romney’s decision in July 2005 to veto the bill Santorum and Gingrich have referenced, which mandated that all Catholic hospitals provide the morning-after pill to all rape victims. (The Church instructs hospitals to first test whether a rape victim has conceived; if she has not, the morning-after pill may be given to prevent conception.) Romney not only vetoed the bill, but forcefully spoke up against it.

“Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk,” Romney wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed. “Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”

Unsurprisingly, the Massachusetts legislature overrode Romney’s veto. It wasn’t a close vote, either: State senators unanimously voted for the bill, joined by 139 House members. Only 16 House members voted to uphold the veto.




But the saga didn’t end there. On December 7, the state’s Department of Public Health stated that Catholic hospitals remained legally exempt from the mandate to distribute emergency contraception, despite the fact that the new law included no religious exemption. The department contended that the new law did not nullify a 1975 statute that did provide an exemption for hospitals that wished not to provide abortion or contraception for religious reasons.

“We feel very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other,” department commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Boston Globe.





On that same day, Romney said, “My own view is that every hospital should provide to rape victims information about emergency contraception, or emergency contraception itself.” The Boston Herald reported that the Romney administration denied there was any tension between Romney’s statement and the DPH’s contention that Catholic hospitals were exempt from the mandate: “Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom denied Romney’s comments yesterday are inconsistent with the action by the DPH he oversees: ‘The governor’s view is not inconsistent with what the law is because the current law allows a hospital to provide emergency information, emergency contraception itself, or neither.’”


That same day, Romney, acting on advice from his own lawyer, decided the DPH’s decision could not stand. “Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims,” reported the Boston Globe on December 9.

Romney, the Globe added, “said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”





Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, reflects on the incident with more sympathy for Romney. “His lawyers came in and said, ‘This is the way it has to be,’” she says of the December 2005 incident. “I’m not sure how many people would have said, ‘Well, I don’t care.’ I don’t know what else he might have done.”


Romney: Flip-Flopping on Contraception? - Katrina Trinko - National Review Online

 

[HUGGY]

Romney Just Cut His Own Throat


Is that another one of those weird Morman cult practices?

Dude, that was SOOOOOOO wrong.