Best GOP Candidate

[Cutlass]

I will never understand why people assail Romney for implementing health care at the State level. Does nobody here grasp federalism?

It's not wrong that he did it. It's wrong that he's campaigning on how awful an idea it is.

 

[GhostWriter16]

NickyJ and Dom, you don't even get to vote in this election, do you?

I'll be 17, I turn 18 the day after inauguration.

That said, I said "Even if I could vote, I wouldn't vote for Romney.' I made it clear that I can't actually vote.

How does this relate?

(PS: And people that can't vote have ran for President before)

 

[warpus]

How about this guy?

 

[NickyJ]

Well, there's a difference. Paul would really like to win, but he's not willing to compromise on his principles to do it, so he knows he won't win. Trump is basically RL trolling.

But you just said that winning isn't Paul's goal. Naturally, people shouldn't be willing to compromise in their principles. That's one of the reasons I support Romney. But not compromising on issues doesn't mean that winning isn't your goal.

Paul is not perfect, but he is honest, principled, and agrees with me on just about every issue that I actually care much about, or is at least reasonably close to my opinion on said issues. And I'll be honest, OBL's death didn't save lives. It needed to be done, but I don't actually think killing him killed Al Queda, it just made him mad. I disagree with Ron Paul mainly since I don't like Pakistan and don't think they have any "Right" to harbor a criminal. But its hardly changed my daily life or anyone's in this country.

I bolded the parts that match with my opinions on Romney. Also, for killing OBL making daily life different, you can't expect that from much of anything. Killing the 10 of Al Queda probably wouldn't have an effect on daily life either. But it would certainly make the world a better place, much like killing Osama.

Ron Paul is pro-life, supports a small government, and economically right-wing. That is a rare combination. Add actually being honest to the mix, and we have probably the best politician a conservative could want. He may have a few black marks, but who doesn't? I don't expect a politician to perfectly agree with me on every issue, but I'd like him to be consistent on every issue. Paul, quite truly, applies. TBH, I don't even think I apply. I compromise sometimes. I don't think compromising necessarily kills a candidate, depending on the circumstances, but you have to admire the guy who won't.

Again, bolded the parts that match with my opinions on Romney. Romney is pretty darn consistent.

Mitt Romney? He's far from just "Not perfect," he's wildly inconsistent. Mitt Romney opposes criminal penalties for abortion, yet he says he's pro-life. Right there, there's a contradiction. At best, he's a pro-choice person who thinks women would be better off choosing life. But who doesn't think that? Who is going to say "Oh, get that abortion, I'll cheer you on!" (Answer: Nobody.) Simply saying that murdering a fetus is immoral does not a pro-life politician make.

Au contraire,

And he claims to be fiscally conservative, yet he put Health Care under the control of Masachusettes. Now, I know liberals in the audience will argue, "But that IS fiscally conservative" but I know you aren't going to buy it. Therefore, we have another contradiction.

Now I do disagree with his health care plan that he put in Massachusetts, he has stated repeatedly that the Federal government will have no effect on health care. Each state handles their own system.

And you have this, from Wikipedia:

While, TBH, "Gay rights" issues are going to mean almost nothing to me during a vote, his positions on abortion and stem-cell research are simply unacceptable.

Homosexual rights do have meaning to me on a vote, (I'm sure you know how) but the section you quoted hardly references them, outside of the fact that his opinion have changed for the better.

Still think he's pro-life? Check out the facts:

Romney clearly held pro-choice positions. That he thinks abortion is immoral himself means little.

Well, when you go back to 1994 before his opinions changed, yeah. But 1994 Romney is far from similar to 2011 Romney. Try looking at what he has said recently, rather than 17 years ago.

And this:

Romney quotes:
Would be delighted to sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)
Following in Reagan’s footsteps in converting to pro-life. (Aug 2007)
Absolute good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed. (May 2007)
Would welcome overturning Roe v. Wade. (Mar 2007)
Anti-abortion views have “evolved & deepened” while governor. (Jul 2005)

So, OK fine, he's not as bad as Obama. That says how much? Not that he's a good candidate I don't think. He says he is pro-life, but he's a liar. There is no way I can support him, and it pains me to see a genuine libertarian-leaning conservative such as yourself to support such a joke.

He's pro-life.

And more Romneyesque hypocricy on gun control:

So Romney magically goes from anti-gun to pro-gun right before he runs for President? He's no friend to the gun-owner, that's for sure (I'm postulating that based on other issues you've commented on, you support the right to bear arms. However, even if this isn't true, you can't possibly appreciate the blatant mindchanging.)

So people can never really change? I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Fun fact: Reagan once ran as a "liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies". HE SUPPORTED FDR, AND NEW DEAL POLICIES. Both of which, I have gotten the message that you can't stand. Reagan changed, and was the last great president we've had. Why aren't you willing to give Romney the same chance?

And on Embryonic Stem-cell research:

Yet another case where his position magically changed on account of his candidacy. Does this strike you as coincidential?

Could very well be coincidental. Do you have anything other than past statements before he changed that prove otherwise?

And on UHC:

So basically, Romney's plan was all good because the GOP supported it? Do you (Romney) not understand how politics work? You're GOP so the GOP will support you. That's how it works. Blatant inconsistency.

Definitely not. Recently, as well as further back in the past, Romney has stated that what is good for one state is not good for another. That's why he says that states should handle their own systems. And with you being a Libertarian and all that, I'd think that you would view that as a positive.

Thanks for convincing me to do this BTW. You've utterly convinced me that if its Romney VS Obama, I should decide upon apathy. Thanks for your help.

Well, if that's the way you feel, you're welcome.

Now, I agree that Ron Paul is NOT perfect. However, he's solidly consistent. There's simply no way to argue against that. And TBH, you only seem to disagree with him on a few issues, most of which he thinks should be up to the states anyway. Your biggest issue with him, Osama Bin Laden, doesn't actually affect you, and even if he's wrong, he's consistent. You can't say that about Romney. In fact, you can't say that about many people.

OBL is far from my biggest difference with Paul. I disagree with his positions on drugs, the border,

So Ron Paul pwns Romney.

For some people.

If you can come up with one case of him being hypocritical (Note, not the same thing as disagreement) let me know. I think you can't do it.

We'll see about that...

NickyJ and Dom, you don't even get to vote in this election, do you?

Correct. But that doesn't stop me from supporting someone.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But you just said that winning isn't Paul's goal. Naturally, people shouldn't be willing to compromise in their principles. That's one of the reasons I support Romney. But not compromising on issues doesn't mean that winning isn't your goal.

I think he wants to win but knows he can't.

I bolded the parts that match with my opinions on Romney. Also, for killing OBL making daily life different, you can't expect that from much of anything. Killing the 10 of Al Queda probably wouldn't have an effect on daily life either. But it would certainly make the world a better place, much like killing Osama.

I doubt it actually saved any lives. I still agreed with getting him because he had murdered and terrorized and so he deserved to die, but its not a big issue for me.

Again, bolded the parts that match with my opinions on Romney. Romney is pretty darn consistent.

Not really.

Now I do disagree with his health care plan that he put in Massachusetts, he has stated repeatedly that the Federal government will have no effect on health care. Each state handles their own system.

He criticized Obamacare, yet he did the SAME THING in Masachusettes. I doubt Romney would act like a conservative in office when he couldn't even do so in Masachusettes.

Homosexual rights do have meaning to me on a vote, (I'm sure you know how) but the section you quoted hardly references them, outside of the fact that his opinion have changed for the better.

I'm not positive, but I'm guessing you oppose gay marriage at least. Which is the boat I'm in, though to be fair I think you have to allow Civil Unions and you have to allow the details to be decided at the state level. But its simply not a huge issue for me. The only way it would really change my opinion much is if someone wanted to force the states to recognize gay marriage, then I'd definitely support them a lot less, but that has more to do with state's rights than gay marriage itself.

At the end of the day, I think its focused upon too much.

ANYHOW:

Au contraire,

Actually, I'm fairly certain I'm correct here. Everyone will say they "Deeply regret abortion" or whatever, but many will say its the "Woman's choice."

And based on this fairly recent quote, Romney agrees:

Romney opposes criminal penalties against women who undergo abortion and believes that society's "hearts and minds" must be changed for policy implementation to be successful.

So basically, he supports legal abortion. Hence he's pro-choice. And this is after he had his "Conversion to pro-life."

So people can never really change? I'm sorry, but I must disagree.

I disagree with the idea (That people can never change) as well. But I don't buy for a second that Romney totally had an epiphany of his viewpoints at the very time he decided to run for President as a Republican. I'm sorry. I just don't. It looks political. It smells political. It doesn't seem genuine.

Fun fact: Reagan once ran as a "liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies". HE SUPPORTED FDR, AND NEW DEAL POLICIES. Both of which, I have gotten the message that you can't stand. Reagan changed, and was the last great president we've had.

I don't idolize Reagan. I'd say he's better than the average President, but TBH we haven't had a TRULY great President since before the New Deal. Its one area I clash with my dad. I'm an idealist. I don't set my sights low. And TBH, Dr. Paul would be a better President than Reagan IMO (Though during the Cold War specifically Reagan would probably have been better.)

Also, Reagan still supported FDR after he changed, although he did become much, much more conservative (Overton Window technique, since Reagan was so much more conservative than everyone else he could still support the New Deal and be conservative.)

That said, when Reagan changed his views, he REALLY CHANGED. He didn't magically decide to change right before he ran for POTUS. It was before that. Changing your position on an issue held so deeply in the hearts of conservatives right before an election is clearly a political move.

Why aren't you willing to give Romney the same chance?

See above. He didn't really change. He changed his mind right before he ran for President.

Could very well be coincidental. Do you have anything other than past statements before he changed that prove otherwise?

And here's position #4 (Abortion, gun control, and gay rights were listed to you already) that he changed in 2008. How ironic he ran for President the same year? When in Masachusettes (Which is fairly liberal) he ran on more liberal ideas. When running for President of the Nation, where the GOP overall is more conservative than the Masachusettes GOP, he became more conservative.

How... utterly coincidential. Seems very unlikely to me.

Definitely not. Recently, as well as further back in the past, Romney has stated that what is good for one state is not good for another. That's why he says that states should handle their own systems. And with you being a Libertarian and all that, I'd think that you would view that as a positive.

Actually, Libertarianism is more about personal rights, freedom from ANY government, than states' rights, though I'm also a Federalist at the same time. That said, I disagree with him. The 10th amendment says "States OR people." I think right not to buy health insurance is a personal right, not a right a state can choose to deny you.

And as I said, I'm not a pure Federalist. While I think a lot of issues should be left up to the states, I think some things should just, no questions asked, be left to the people. I don't think just because New York wants to be stupid they should be allowed to have laws as stupid as they do. These sorts of things will fall under the 9th (If you want some examples, I'll send you a PM, I REALLY don't want to argue with people silly enough to defend them, and I'm not naming names.)

Well, if that's the way you feel, you're welcome.

Isn't it ironic that we can agree on so much, but not a candidate? (This is the situation with me and my dad.)

OBL is far from my biggest difference with Paul. I disagree with his positions on drugs, the border,

I believe in legalizing most drugs and decriminalizing (Basically, nobody will go to prison for it anymore) all of them. Does this mean you wouldn't vote for me?

In all seriousness, however, I want to challenge your opinion on marijuanna. Believe me, its not a huge issue for me, but I see it as largely pointless and unnecessary to ban it. I mean, if someone wants to smoke pot in their own home, why is that your business?

Now, if someone is selling it to teenagers, yeah, then you need to punish him, but if he's minding his own business I see no reason to get involved.

I agree with you, sort of, on the border, mainly because the government needs to actually put the law in some degree of respect. Meaning, get rid of dumb rules and enforce good ones. And illegal immigration does have dangers, especially with people shipping money back to Mexico, bringing drug wars across the border, exc. But the states are quite capable of handling this themselves (See how Arizona attempted to do so?) Ron Paul isn't going to stop this, he just doesn't want to send the Federal Military, to which I say, who really cares? The states can handle it themselves, can't they?

We'll see about that...

Bring it on

 

[kochman]

I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with you two debating so much and the avatars, etc...

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with you two debating so much and the avatars, etc...

Well, NickyJ and I both agree that I would be the best candidate, but we're totally polar opposites on the second best choice

Sorry, but I'm keeping the avatar until 2012. Despite the confusion (I've legitimately confused myself a few times in other things, NickyJ is such a similar poster to me overall that sometimes I'll read one of its posts and think, "Wait, I don't remember posting this")

Its simply though, NickyJ is the one defending Romney, I'm the one defending Ronny

 

[GhostWriter16]

How about this guy?

My cousin would vote for that guy (Heck, he even said he'd vote for Hitler if somehow he ran against Obama)

 

[NickyJ]

I think he wants to win but knows he can't.

Then winning is his goal.

Not really.

Yes really.

He criticized Obamacare, yet he did the SAME THING in Masachusettes. I doubt Romney would act like a conservative in office when he couldn't even do so in Masachusettes.

He criticized Obama for putting it on the national scale. Romney's whole point is that the states should make their own plan.

I'm not positive, but I'm guessing you oppose gay marriage at least. Which is the boat I'm in, though to be fair I think you have to allow Civil Unions and you have to allow the details to be decided at the state level. But its simply not a huge issue for me. The only way it would really change my opinion much is if someone wanted to force the states to recognize gay marriage, then I'd definitely support them a lot less, but that has more to do with state's rights than gay marriage itself.

At the end of the day, I think its focused upon too much.

At least is correct.

Actually, I'm fairly certain I'm correct here. Everyone will say they "Deeply regret abortion" or whatever, but many will say its the "Woman's choice."

And based on this fairly recent quote, Romney agrees:

So basically, he supports legal abortion. Hence he's pro-choice. And this is after he had his "Conversion to pro-life."

Actually, he says it should be handled the way partial birth abortions are handled.

I disagree with the idea (That people can never change) as well. But I don't buy for a second that Romney totally had an epiphany of his viewpoints at the very time he decided to run for President as a Republican. I'm sorry. I just don't. It looks political. It smells political. It doesn't seem genuine.

I don't put time limits on when someone can change.

I don't idolize Reagan. I'd say he's better than the average President, but TBH we haven't had a TRULY great President since before the New Deal. Its one area I clash with my dad. I'm an idealist. I don't set my sights low. And TBH, Dr. Paul would be a better President than Reagan IMO (Though during the Cold War specifically Reagan would probably have been better.)

Also, Reagan still supported FDR after he changed, although he did become much, much more conservative (Overton Window technique, since Reagan was so much more conservative than everyone else he could still support the New Deal and be conservative.)

That said, when Reagan changed his views, he REALLY CHANGED. He didn't magically decide to change right before he ran for POTUS. It was before that. Changing your position on an issue held so deeply in the hearts of conservatives right before an election is clearly a political move.

I don't idolize him either, but he was still much better than the presidents of that period and onward. For last excellent president, that would be Eisenhower in my books. Anyway, for the bolded part, can you really say that Romney didn't do the same thing? Do you have ironclad evidence of this?

And here's position #4 (Abortion, gun control, and gay rights were listed to you already) that he changed in 2008. How ironic he ran for President the same year? When in Masachusettes (Which is fairly liberal) he ran on more liberal ideas. When running for President of the Nation, where the GOP overall is more conservative than the Masachusettes GOP, he became more conservative.

How... utterly coincidential. Seems very unlikely to me.

When he was in Massachusetts, he hadn't changed yet. Also, not to nitpick, but he changed in '07.

Actually, Libertarianism is more about personal rights, freedom from ANY government, than states' rights, though I'm also a Federalist at the same time. That said, I disagree with him. The 10th amendment says "States OR people." I think right not to buy health insurance is a personal right, not a right a state can choose to deny you.

And as I said, I'm not a pure Federalist. While I think a lot of issues should be left up to the states, I think some things should just, no questions asked, be left to the people. I don't think just because New York wants to be stupid they should be allowed to have laws as stupid as they do. These sorts of things will fall under the 9th (If you want some examples, I'll send you a PM, I REALLY don't want to argue with people silly enough to defend them, and I'm not naming names.)

I don't like the health plan either, but I still support states making their own choices. Then the people can have greater voice in what they get. Also, I know their are stupid laws out there which I would rather have the people decide on.

Isn't it ironic that we can agree on so much, but not a candidate? (This is the situation with me and my dad.)

Hmm, maybe I'm acting older than my age. But I'm not going to support windbags like the Newtster.

I believe in legalizing most drugs and decriminalizing (Basically, nobody will go to prison for it anymore) all of them. Does this mean you wouldn't vote for me?

Since there are other things that I find more important that we agree on, I'd still vote for you.

In all seriousness, however, I want to challenge your opinion on marijuanna. Believe me, its not a huge issue for me, but I see it as largely pointless and unnecessary to ban it. I mean, if someone wants to smoke pot in their own home, why is that your business?

I'm still against drugs. Getting high poses risks to personal health and others. People seem to easily become addicted, which adds to greater risks because of what lengths they'll go through to get more.

I agree with you, sort of, on the border, mainly because the government needs to actually put the law in some degree of respect. Meaning, get rid of dumb rules and enforce good ones. And illegal immigration does have dangers, especially with people shipping money back to Mexico, bringing drug wars across the border, exc. But the states are quite capable of handling this themselves (See how Arizona attempted to do so?) Ron Paul isn't going to stop this, he just doesn't want to send the Federal Military, to which I say, who really cares? The states can handle it themselves, can't they?

Eh, I don't know. About the states handling it, I mean. I'm not sure that all the states are willing to handle things as directly as Arizona.

I'm going to bring this back:

Paul feels the Federal government makes too many mistakes and isn't constitutitonally allowed to use it, but he feels the states should be allowed to choose to use it, and he supports them doing so at their discretion. So, he's certainly not as pro Capital Punishment as me, but he doesn't 100% oppose it.

Ron Paul opposes the death penalty at both federal and state level. Source.

I'm for the death penalty at both levels.

Another thing that I disagree with Ron Paul on: Minimum wage. I find it absolutely necessary.

Bring it on

For starters: Unions. He says he's against unions, but he supported the Air Traffic Controller's Union.

I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with you two debating so much and the avatars, etc...

It is kind of fun. And I too have confused myself. But then I see words defending Romney or Paul, so it gets sorted out for the most part. But I'm keeping this until 2012 as well.

My cousin would vote for that guy (Heck, he even said he'd vote for Hitler if somehow he ran against Obama)

I'm sorry, but you cousin sounds like he has... issues.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then winning is his goal.

Yeah, sorry I didn't make 100% sense. He'd like to win, he just knows he can't. But he's trying.

Yes really.

Well, considering my entire post illustrated why he isn't, I felt the simple "Not really" comment was OK in that case.

He criticized Obama for putting it on the national scale. Romney's whole point is that the states should make their own plan.

Except he never says this. He said its OK because both parties supported it.

At least is correct.

What is correct?

Actually, he says it should be handled the way partial birth abortions are handled.

Partial birth abortion carries a prison sentence (Of 2.5 years, a mere pittance for something so clearly murder) but Romney opposes doing this with other abortions. I provided proof in the quote I linked above.

I don't put time limits on when someone can change.

Me either, but I think he's lying. He changed right before he entered the primary, so its not very likely that he did so for genuine reasons. The thing is, you are too trusting that politicians are telling you the truth. They aren't.

Ron Paul has held the same positions for years, and he has continually run for President even though his ideas are far enough to the right and socially libertarian that he will never get elected. He tells the truth. So I trust him.

I don't idolize him either, but he was still much better than the presidents of that period and onward. For last excellent president, that would be Eisenhower in my books. Anyway, for the bolded part, can you really say that Romney didn't do the same thing? Do you have ironclad evidence of this?

Define "Ironclad." If lying and waffling were a crime, I think there's enough evidence to convict Romney in court. Am I ABSOLUTELY certain? Nope. But I am fairly certain. You are assuming the best of Romney. I'm assuming logically.

Think of it this way, if he REALLY had an epiphany of views, would he run for POTUS immediately after doing so?

When he was in Massachusetts, he hadn't changed yet. Also, not to nitpick, but he changed in '07.

Ah, so he changed BEFORE The GOP primary, rather than after. Definitely seems like that makes him a better candidate

I don't like the health plan either, but I still support states making their own choices. Then the people can have greater voice in what they get. Also, I know their are stupid laws out there which I would rather have the people decide on.

Ah, the fact that I live in New freakin' York right now makes this more difficult to accept, but people condemn themselves I guess. But either way, Romney chose to do it in his state, so he's clearly not very conservative fiscally. Just because he's a Federalist doesn't automatically make him a good choice.

Hmm, maybe I'm acting older than my age. But I'm not going to support windbags like the Newtster.

This is why I don't like Romney

Since there are other things that I find more important that we agree on, I'd still vote for you.

Don't you have to since you're my VP?

I'm still against drugs. Getting high poses risks to personal health and others. People seem to easily become addicted, which adds to greater risks because of what lengths they'll go through to get more.

I think people have the right to hurt themselves. And it doesn't harm anyone else if its in your own home.

Eh, I don't know. About the states handling it, I mean. I'm not sure that all the states are willing to handle things as directly as Arizona.

Ah, HERE WE ARE ON THE STATES THING AGAIN! You can't have it both ways, either you think states should be allowed to choose, for better or worse, or you think the Fed Govt. should choose for them. You can't have it both ways. Unless you have good reasoning this should be Federal issue and Healthcare should be state issue.

And no, they probably wouldn't. But at least under Ron Paul, the smart ones could. Under Obama, the smart ones have to rebel to do so (It looks like Arizona is)

Ron Paul opposes the death penalty at both federal and state level. Source.

A: Over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you’re rich, you get away with it; if you’re poor & you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted & convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.

Bolded the parts you seem to be missing. Ron Paul believes in capital punishment, but he doesn't think the Federal government should use it.

I'm for the death penalty at both levels.

I agree, very hesitantly. Honestly, I don't see why the state can't just execute the people themselves, they don't really NEED the Federal Government to do it. I don't inherently see so-called "Crimes against the state" as worse than similar crimes against civilians either. So I'm fine with Federal executions, and I agree with them in pertinent cases, but I don't think we would die if we couldn't use them, we could just give said criminals to their home states to judge.

Another thing that I disagree with Ron Paul on: Minimum wage. I find it absolutely necessary.

I don't

And I really don't see why it is. A lot of people who make that wage are teens, and some jobs aren't worth that much. Also, federal minimum wage is not constitutionally legal. And I believe in absolute free market, much like Paul does.

For starters: Unions. He says he's against unions, but he supported the Air Traffic Controller's Union.

Source? (I'm not saying I don't believe you, but like the death penalty quote above, you may have missed context.)

I'm sorry, but you cousin sounds like he has... issues.

Yes

 

[Ajidica]

Ewww, blocks of quotes.
Either break it up or get a room you two.

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with someone else's posts, then report it, don't take it upon yourself to comment on it. This is trolling and isn't conducive to civil discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ewww, blocks of quotes.
Either break it up or get a room you two.

Honestly? I don't see this as an issue, especially since this is about the best GOP candidate and since you probably would answer: "None of them, I'm voting for Obama," then why do you even care?

We're just having a discussion. This is allowed.

 

[Ajidica]

To quote from DaveShack in the current Site Feedback thread on blocks of quotes:

Several things may be acted upon, depending on context.

Chopping quotes so fine that the chopped bits become inflammatory where the whole was not. Also misquoting when it's not absolutely clear to all that it's meant to be humor or if there is a chance the misquote will be taken the wrong way.
When ad homs start appearing in the discussion.
When the quotewar goes in a different direction than the thread. Example a thread about gay marriage sprouts a discussion (quotewar or not) on degrees of sin (typically as a form of ad hom).
When a pair of members (or 3 or 4) starts to dominate whole pages of a thread, making it seem like the thread is their personal battleground to the exclusion of others.

It has been like this for the past few pages. The fact you guys have identical avatars makes it seem like your posts go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and.........

Moderator Action: Also in Site Feedback, from the forum rules:

Discussing the person, and not the topic.
[...]
Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making.

Infraction for this and the previous post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well then by all means POST SOMETHING instead of simply telling us to stop discussing.

 

[NickyJ]

Except he never says this. He said its OK because both parties supported it.

On the contrary, he has said that "I say no, let the states create their own plans...."

What is correct?

I was saying that your statement "at least" was correct. I have deeper issues with homosexuals than just marriage.

Partial birth abortion carries a prison sentence (Of 2.5 years, a mere pittance for something so clearly murder) but Romney opposes doing this with other abortions. I provided proof in the quote I linked above.

Actually, he supports it for other abortions as well. Link.

Me either, but I think he's lying. He changed right before he entered the primary, so its not very likely that he did so for genuine reasons. The thing is, you are too trusting that politicians are telling you the truth. They aren't.

That seems to imply a time limit.

Define "Ironclad." If lying and waffling were a crime, I think there's enough evidence to convict Romney in court. Am I ABSOLUTELY certain? Nope. But I am fairly certain. You are assuming the best of Romney. I'm assuming logically.

I'm looking for undeniable evidence. Something that is easily discernible as meaning he is a hypocrite and lying. Currently, it's just going off of suspicion, and not much else. As for waffling, I don't really think that leaving one side, going to the other, and staying there is considered waffling.

Think of it this way, if he REALLY had an epiphany of views, would he run for POTUS immediately after doing so?

Why wouldn't he?

This is why I don't like Romney

Hmm, older people with more experience support Romney. I wonder... (Kidding, kidding! Jokes, people! )

I think people have the right to hurt themselves. And it doesn't harm anyone else if its in your own home.

I don't support people hurting themselves. And what starts in the home doesn't necessarily stay in the home.

Ah, HERE WE ARE ON THE STATES THING AGAIN! You can't have it both ways, either you think states should be allowed to choose, for better or worse, or you think the Fed Govt. should choose for them. You can't have it both ways. Unless you have good reasoning this should be Federal issue and Healthcare should be state issue.

My reasoning for this: Federal government handles the defenses and security of our country. (I'm sure we all agree on this) The border is a liability to our security. Terrorists could easily get across the borders. Therefore, the Federal government takes care of our national security by handling the borders. With health care, the states can better address their peoples' individual needs than the Federal government can by making a health care blanket that covers the whole country with just one system.

Bolded the parts you seem to be missing. Ron Paul believes in capital punishment, but he doesn't think the Federal government should use it.

But he doesn't address the state level, unlike how he did in my source link.

I agree, very hesitantly. Honestly, I don't see why the state can't just execute the people themselves, they don't really NEED the Federal Government to do it. I don't inherently see so-called "Crimes against the state" as worse than similar crimes against civilians either. So I'm fine with Federal executions, and I agree with them in pertinent cases, but I don't think we would die if we couldn't use them, we could just give said criminals to their home states to judge.

I'm not saying that the states can't handle them too, but I do think that the Federal government should be barred from administering justice.

I don't

And I really don't see why it is. A lot of people who make that wage are teens, and some jobs aren't worth that much. Also, federal minimum wage is not constitutionally legal. And I believe in absolute free market, much like Paul does.

Not to sound like a liberal and all that, but without minimum wage, businesses can exploit people who desperate for work that are willing to work for low wages. Plus, this can be coupled with illegal immigrants. Businesses can use illegal immigrants by hiring them on extra low wages, threaten them with reporting them to the government, then just replace all legal workers with the low wage illegals, thereby depriving of legal workers of a job.

Source? (I'm not saying I don't believe you, but like the death penalty quote above, you may have missed context.)

Source.

Well then by all means POST SOMETHING instead of simply telling us to stop discussing.

Exactly. Doesn't really seem to be contributing to the discussion if all you say is that you don't like posts.

 

[GhostWriter16]

On the contrary, he has said that "I say no, let the states create their own plans...."

Fair enough. But he still supports it at the state level. I don't.

I was saying that your statement "at least" was correct. I have deeper issues with homosexuals than just marriage.

Well, I don't like homosexuality either, but there comes a point where you can't force people to live your way. I oppose gay marriage though because its a form of government endorsement.

Q: What would be the legal consequences to people who participated in illegal abortions?

A: They would be like the consequences associated with the bill relating to partial birth abortion which does not punish the woman. No one I know of is calling for punishing the woman. In the case of a doctor, the kinds of penalties would be potentially losing a license or having some other kind of restriction. In the case of partial birth abortion, as I recall, the penalty is a possible prison term not to exceed two years. But generally the medical profession would immediately follow the law. That’s not going to be an issue. And there would be a recognition that one’s license was at risk if one violated the law.

OK, apparently the partial birth abortion law doesn't punish the woman. I just lost faith in America. But technically you are right. His position still isn't fully pro-life though, as he obviously doesn't believe life begins at conception (If he did, he'd punish it like murder.)

I gotta go for now.

 

[NickyJ]

Fair enough. But he still supports it at the state level. I don't.

I don't support his health care bill either, but I do support states making their own health care plans without Federal intrusion.

Q: What would be the legal consequences to people who participated in illegal abortions?

I myself wouldn't mind capital punishment.

OK, apparently the partial birth abortion law doesn't punish the woman. I just lost faith in America. But technically you are right. His position still isn't fully pro-life though, as he obviously doesn't believe life begins at conception (If he did, he'd punish it like murder.)

"Q: Do you believe life begins at conception?

A: I do."

 

[GamezRule]

Eisenhower could have been a Democrat. He wasn't picky, nor did he really care.

Also, the Federal Highway Act was SOCIALISM!!! By your definition He passed it by convincing the Conservatives in Congress that it would be a good defense tool if the Soviets invaded.

 

[kochman]

Guys...
Politicians change their ideas all the time.

Romney would never have won office in MA if he didn't take a more moderate line.
He would never win the GOP nomination if he didn't take a more conservative line than he did in MA.

That's how it goes.
If Nancy Pelosi was running in rural GA, instead of SF, she'd be a blue dog democrat or something.

If you are going to disqualify guys for doing nothing more than listening to their constituents... well... good luck.

 

[NickyJ]

Eisenhower could have been a Democrat. He wasn't picky, nor did he really care.

Source?

Also, the Federal Highway Act was SOCIALISM!!! By your definition He passed it by convincing the Conservatives in Congress that it would be a good defense tool if the Soviets invaded.

Source? Especially for the socialism part. Anyway, I think making highways is fine.