Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 05:47:22 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Romney is a still a piece of [inks] coward  (Read 2115 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2012, 12:39:20 pm »
Ignore

Do we really have to resort to name calling or is that all that the left can offer? What about ideas and solutions?

Like "slut"?
Not to mention that Obama did offer a solution on health care. Not a left wing solution, but one implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and endorsed by him, by Newt Gingrich, by the Heritage Foundation, and lots of others, as the responsible moderate compromise that was acceptable to conservatives. Now it's suddenly the worst thing in the world, and repealing it is the top priority.
This is a case where not only do Republicans not have a solution, but they're insisting on un-solving something for which a solution was found. So they call women sluts instead.

 No "solution" has been implemented. Obamacare was imposed. It drives up costs, not lowers them. For instance, the latest birth control fiscal fiasco. Fluke told Congress with a straight face that birth control costs a Georgetown student $3,000. That's $750/yr. Generics are available at Walmart and Target for $9/mo. Add a couple of hundred bucks a year for a pelvic exam, and the real costs are half her estimate. Of course, once insurance pays the generics are discarded in favor of pricey alternatives such as Yaz or Mirana. Since someone else is paying, all of a sudden the costs really are $3,000. Big Parma wins, and the taxpayer loses.

The reality is that Georgetown isn't going to "eat" the extra costs, nor are the insurance companies. Georgetown will have no choice but to recover the extra costs in higher tuition or fees. Fluke is still going to have to pay for her birth control. College is not a free lunch. But, now, because there are no incentive to control costs she will have to pay more.

This is a good post. I would add that women who are sleeping around without insisting upon their partners wearing condoms should have to front their own costs of STD treatment if they get infected with something. You want a cheap, readily available form of birth control, it's called a condom and it's the only contraceptive that helps prevent STDs, including the AIDS virus.

Nobody is responsible for my health other than myself. Similarly, I am not responsible for anybody's health with the exception of my family's. There is no free lunch. Doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, etc. certainly do not provide their labor free of charge, regardless of whether individuals, insurance companies, or the government are footing the bill of services rendered.
So you oppose the health care reform implemented in Massachusetts by Governor Romney? And advocated by him as a national solution as recently as July of 2009?

I don't live in Massachusetts, so I'm fine with it. I prefer having the states figure out how they want to address health care rather than having the federal government enforce a one-size-fits-all package. Each state knows themselves better than Washington. Contrary to liberal belief, Washington does not know best.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 12:44:12 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2012, 12:44:55 pm »
Ignore

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2012, 12:46:38 pm »
Ignore

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?

This one goes to all of you hyper-partisans in the room who want to turn the Atlas into Diet Democratic Underground (not the above poster, necessarily):

"If you agree with me on nine out of twelve issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on twelve out of twelve issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

- Ed Koch

Unfortunately, it appears most of America needs a psychiatrist these days.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 12:55:17 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2012, 12:50:47 pm »
Ignore

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?

"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

- Ed Koch

True, but health care was one of the most important issues of his campaign, as I remember. Not something he just said, he made a key issue. Just like Wall Street reform.

He ran a pretty leftwing campaign but governed like a centrist. So what is your problem with Obama now?
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2012, 12:57:53 pm »
Ignore

You said you supported Obama 4 years ago? Right?

But you are now really opposed to health care reform?

Why on earth did you support Barack Obama then?

He did what he said he would do. And you are now disappointed with the fact that he did do it?

"If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist."

- Ed Koch

True, but health care was one of the most important issues of his campaign, as I remember. Not something he just said, he made a key issue. Just like Wall Street reform.

He ran a pretty leftwing campaign but governed like a centrist. So what is your problem with Obama now?

I largely supported Obama because I believed he would be a New Democrat in the Bill Clinton mold (circa 1995-2001), who would help restore confidence in America and bring us together again (remember "there are no blue states or red states; there is the United States" or however he put it?). Like most of America, I was suffering from severe Bush fatigue. I believed I was getting a moderate on economic issues, somebody who would oversee responsible, effective stimulus spending WITH a plan for long-term fiscal discipline. I did not think I was going to get a spend-and-tax-later liberal. I largely opposed his idea of federal health care and his views on gun control, nuclear energy, crime, and probably some other issues that do not come immediately to mind. Last but not least, I have moved to the right over the past four years, so that plays into it. But I am still quite liberal on a lot of social issues. Also, I am happy with Obama's performance in the foreign policy realm with the exception of Iran, where I think he needs to be slightly more tough with the rhetoric. Foreign policy is the only area where Obama largely delivered what I expected (i.e., overseeing a successful withdrawal in Iraq and the death of Bin Laden while maintaining successful covert operations throughout the world).
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:03:44 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2012, 01:06:57 pm »
Ignore

Obama never ran as a New Democrat. HRC was the New Democrat of the two. Obama was much more of a populist from the start. In the Senate he was one of the most liberal members. His campaign was the most leftwing winning campaign since 1964. It was very naive to think that Obama would govern like Clinton did. And I doubt even Bill Clinton would have done things very different. This isn't the 1990's.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14670
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2012, 03:16:01 pm »
Ignore

Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock. He gets good ratings by being controversial (by, surprise-surprise, saying controversial things). Regardless of merit, he is also influential (he is the real life jmfcst, the leader of the jmfcsts). With regards to politics, the signal is clear: Romney is stepping on egg shells with Limbaugh because he respects Limbaugh and does not want to incur his wrath. Limbaugh could appreciate this, and may possibly consider calling the GOP war over if Romney is successful on Super Tuesday.


All that tells me is that when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, Romney is, first and foremost, SPINELESS. A "valueless cipher"(Lief), indeed
Logged

Moderate Liberal Populist Smiley [Personal 45%/Economic 42%] / Defense 'Hawk'

Registered in Georgia for Fantasy Politics
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34533


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2012, 03:16:38 pm »
Ignore

If Mitt Romney can't even stand up to Rush Limbaugh when he calls a woman a slut, how is he going to stand up to the Tea Party congress when they demand he sign a flat tax and the privatization of social security and medicare?
Logged

Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2012, 08:32:54 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.
Logged
Pictor Ignotus
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6433


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2012, 08:39:20 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Your point about choosing your battles is well taken, but I think this is one Romney should consider addressing- the Republicans have not been helped electorally by this whole debate about birth control. For him to say that a woman is in fact not a slut because she wants birth control as part of her health insurance policy might actually help with some of that swing vote he's supposed to be so great at getting. Especially when Santorum is on record saying Limbaugh went too far.
Logged

Renew our Democracy!
Yank2133
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1460


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2012, 08:40:39 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.
Logged
Pictor Ignotus
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6433


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2012, 08:47:10 pm »
Ignore

I must have missed the picture where Obama sticks his finger in Brewer's face.
Logged

Renew our Democracy!
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2012, 09:06:29 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.

Stop with the racism and racist labeling. That's all your party has known how to do since the 1960's. "You're racist if you disagree with us." You're completely ignorant of the fact that the NAACP was started by a Republican yet you babble about racism where racism is not. I've never heard of a conservative mayor but Republican mayors do exist. Demographics in cities do not allow conservatives to take the office of mayor in big cities.
Logged
Yank2133
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1460


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2012, 09:16:46 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.

Stop with the racism and racist labeling. That's all your party has known how to do since the 1960's. "You're racist if you disagree with us." You're completely ignorant of the fact that the NAACP was started by a Republican yet you babble about racism where racism is not. I've never heard of a conservative mayor but Republican mayors do exist. Demographics in cities do not allow conservatives to take the office of mayor in big cities.

The truth hurts.

Obama by all accounts wasn't hostile with Brewer. Calling him threatening is just thinly disguised racism(AKA the angry black man).

Yeah, but who's party based their entire election strategy the past 40 years on scaring working class whites through racism and bigotry.(Does the Southern Strategy ring a bell?)
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2012, 09:27:25 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.

Stop with the racism and racist labeling. That's all your party has known how to do since the 1960's. "You're racist if you disagree with us." You're completely ignorant of the fact that the NAACP was started by a Republican yet you babble about racism where racism is not. I've never heard of a conservative mayor but Republican mayors do exist. Demographics in cities do not allow conservatives to take the office of mayor in big cities.

The truth hurts.

Obama by all accounts wasn't hostile with Brewer. Calling him threatening is just thinly disguised racism(AKA the angry black man).

Yeah, but who's party based their entire election strategy the past 40 years on scaring working class whites through racism and bigotry.(Does the Southern Strategy ring a bell?)

The truth hurts and the truth is that Democrats only know how to talk about racism when defending their stances. Angry black man sounds racist by you, not me. There you go again playing the race card. Give it up. It's not 1968 anymore. "Scarring working class whites through racism and bigotry" right out of the Democratic playbook. You should start chanting for hope and change too so you'd fit the mold even better. Got any original ideas? Anyways once again we have the Democrats name calling Romney because they aren't able to debate him on ideology or issues. So much for focusing on issues that effect everyone.
Logged
Yank2133
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1460


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2012, 09:36:43 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.

Stop with the racism and racist labeling. That's all your party has known how to do since the 1960's. "You're racist if you disagree with us." You're completely ignorant of the fact that the NAACP was started by a Republican yet you babble about racism where racism is not. I've never heard of a conservative mayor but Republican mayors do exist. Demographics in cities do not allow conservatives to take the office of mayor in big cities.

The truth hurts.

Obama by all accounts wasn't hostile with Brewer. Calling him threatening is just thinly disguised racism(AKA the angry black man).

Yeah, but who's party based their entire election strategy the past 40 years on scaring working class whites through racism and bigotry.(Does the Southern Strategy ring a bell?)

The truth hurts and the truth is that Democrats only know how to talk about racism when defending their stances. Angry black man sounds racist by you, not me. There you go again playing the race card. Give it up. It's not 1968 anymore. "Scarring working class whites through racism and bigotry" right out of the Democratic playbook. You should start chanting for hope and change too so you'd fit the mold even better. Got any original ideas? Anyways once again we have the Democrats name calling Romney because they aren't able to debate him on ideology or issues. So much for focusing on issues that effect everyone.

I am calling it racism, because it is racism.

Obama from all reports wasn't hostile or rude to Brewer, yet you called him threatening and I wonder why?

Oh and Democrats would run circles around Mitt Romney if the election is about ideology and issues, the man has taking two stances on every single issue. Hell, I look forward to him debating healthcare with the President, or his claim about the navy being weaker then it was in 1917, or his tax polices and how he will be tough on China and Iran.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 524
United States


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2012, 11:36:40 pm »
Ignore

Romney doesn't rebuttle every attack but at the same time, it's imporant that he rise above it. Does anyone remember Obama peeing his pants over Stanley McChrystal from a Rolling Stones magazine? His reaction made it look like he couldn't take any criticism. How about his near threatening behavior towards Jan Brewer a month ago over a book? If I didn't know any better, Obama would've had me thinking that no politicians had ever criticized each other. Sometimes reacting to every attack is worse than letting a few go.

Lmao, are you serious?

Even the GOP mayors who were there thought the President was fairly cordial to Brewer.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/2nd_mayor_says_obama_wasnt_tense_at_all_during_bre.php

Oh, he is black so therefore he must be threatening.

Stop with the racism and racist labeling. That's all your party has known how to do since the 1960's. "You're racist if you disagree with us." You're completely ignorant of the fact that the NAACP was started by a Republican yet you babble about racism where racism is not. I've never heard of a conservative mayor but Republican mayors do exist. Demographics in cities do not allow conservatives to take the office of mayor in big cities.

The truth hurts.

Obama by all accounts wasn't hostile with Brewer. Calling him threatening is just thinly disguised racism(AKA the angry black man).

Yeah, but who's party based their entire election strategy the past 40 years on scaring working class whites through racism and bigotry.(Does the Southern Strategy ring a bell?)

The truth hurts and the truth is that Democrats only know how to talk about racism when defending their stances. Angry black man sounds racist by you, not me. There you go again playing the race card. Give it up. It's not 1968 anymore. "Scarring working class whites through racism and bigotry" right out of the Democratic playbook. You should start chanting for hope and change too so you'd fit the mold even better. Got any original ideas? Anyways once again we have the Democrats name calling Romney because they aren't able to debate him on ideology or issues. So much for focusing on issues that effect everyone.

I am calling it racism, because it is racism.

Obama from all reports wasn't hostile or rude to Brewer, yet you called him threatening and I wonder why?

Oh and Democrats would run circles around Mitt Romney if the election is about ideology and issues, the man has taking two stances on every single issue. Hell, I look forward to him debating healthcare with the President, or his claim about the navy being weaker then it was in 1917, or his tax polices and how he will be tough on China and Iran.

I'm sure you look forward to that in a debate and if your candidate loses the election you'll wonder why. You just know everything don't you. I mean if a Democrat says I'm racist then it must be the case that I am racist. I hate to burst your bubble but the Democratic Party doesn't have all the answers anymore than the Repubican Party. Then again if you say it's racism then it must be the case. You are a Democrat and that means you know everything. If someone views something a certain way contrary to the Democratic Party then it has to be the case that it's racism. 1965 is calling and they want their talking points back.
Logged
Likely Voter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4746


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2012, 01:12:46 pm »
Ignore

Romney really had a Sister Souljah moment here to appeal to independents and women, and he blew it. Even self-admitted Romney-hack Mike Murphy agreed on MTP this morning that Romney failed to show any courage here
Logged

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2012, 11:57:22 pm »
Ignore

Romney really had a Sister Souljah moment here to appeal to independents and women, and he blew it. Even self-admitted Romney-hack Mike Murphy agreed on MTP this morning that Romney failed to show any courage here

Romney has not won the nomination yet. Romney won't need a Sister Souljah moment because, unlike Democrats circa 1992, the furthest right elements of the Republican base will be toning down their tone-deaf ways soon enough.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28802
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2012, 12:06:29 am »
Ignore

Romney really had a Sister Souljah moment here to appeal to independents and women, and he blew it. Even self-admitted Romney-hack Mike Murphy agreed on MTP this morning that Romney failed to show any courage here

Romney has not won the nomination yet. Romney won't need a Sister Souljah moment because, unlike Democrats circa 1992, the furthest right elements of the Republican base will be toning down their tone-deaf ways soon enough.

Grin  Just as they did in 2008?  The tone-deaf idiots of both left and right don't turn their volume down when its general election time.  Quite the reverse in fact.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2275
View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2012, 12:10:36 am »
Ignore

Do we really have to resort to name calling or is that all that the left can offer? What about ideas and solutions?

Like "slut"?
Not to mention that Obama did offer a solution on health care. Not a left wing solution, but one implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and endorsed by him, by Newt Gingrich, by the Heritage Foundation, and lots of others, as the responsible moderate compromise that was acceptable to conservatives. Now it's suddenly the worst thing in the world, and repealing it is the top priority.
This is a case where not only do Republicans not have a solution, but they're insisting on un-solving something for which a solution was found. So they call women sluts instead.

 No "solution" has been implemented. Obamacare was imposed. It drives up costs, not lowers them. For instance, the latest birth control fiscal fiasco. Fluke told Congress with a straight face that birth control costs a Georgetown student $3,000. That's $750/yr. Generics are available at Walmart and Target for $9/mo. Add a couple of hundred bucks a year for a pelvic exam, and the real costs are half her estimate. Of course, once insurance pays the generics are discarded in favor of pricey alternatives such as Yaz or Mirana. Since someone else is paying, all of a sudden the costs really are $3,000. Big Parma wins, and the taxpayer loses.

The reality is that Georgetown isn't going to "eat" the extra costs, nor are the insurance companies. Georgetown will have no choice but to recover the extra costs in higher tuition or fees. Fluke is still going to have to pay for her birth control. College is not a free lunch. But, now, because there are no incentive to control costs she will have to pay more.
I was speaking specifically of the individual health insurance mandate, something lots of Republicans (including Romney) argued Obama should implement -- until he did.

And, I was taking about whether, or not, Obama has offered a "solution." He hasn't. If you are merely claiming Obama offered an individual mandate, I concur. If you are claiming he offered a "solution," I am noting that claim is nonsensical.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2275
View Profile
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2012, 12:24:48 am »
Ignore

Do we really have to resort to name calling or is that all that the left can offer? What about ideas and solutions?

Like "slut"?
Not to mention that Obama did offer a solution on health care. Not a left wing solution, but one implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and endorsed by him, by Newt Gingrich, by the Heritage Foundation, and lots of others, as the responsible moderate compromise that was acceptable to conservatives. Now it's suddenly the worst thing in the world, and repealing it is the top priority.
This is a case where not only do Republicans not have a solution, but they're insisting on un-solving something for which a solution was found. So they call women sluts instead.

 No "solution" has been implemented. Obamacare was imposed. It drives up costs, not lowers them. For instance, the latest birth control fiscal fiasco. Fluke told Congress with a straight face that birth control costs a Georgetown student $3,000. That's $750/yr. Generics are available at Walmart and Target for $9/mo. Add a couple of hundred bucks a year for a pelvic exam, and the real costs are half her estimate. Of course, once insurance pays the generics are discarded in favor of pricey alternatives such as Yaz or Mirana. Since someone else is paying, all of a sudden the costs really are $3,000. Big Parma wins, and the taxpayer loses.

The reality is that Georgetown isn't going to "eat" the extra costs, nor are the insurance companies. Georgetown will have no choice but to recover the extra costs in higher tuition or fees. Fluke is still going to have to pay for her birth control. College is not a free lunch. But, now, because there are no incentive to control costs she will have to pay more.

This is a good post. I would add that women who are sleeping around without insisting upon their partners wearing condoms should have to front their own costs of STD treatment if they get infected with something. You want a cheap, readily available form of birth control, it's called a condom and it's the only contraceptive that helps prevent STDs, including the AIDS virus.

Nobody is responsible for my health other than myself. Similarly, I am not responsible for anybody's health with the exception of my family's. There is no free lunch. Doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, etc. certainly do not provide their labor free of charge, regardless of whether individuals, insurance companies, or the government are footing the bill of services rendered.

Umm, Romney passed a bill that mandated IVF treatment, essentially gratis. Romney's rationale for the individual mandate was to deal with "free riders." Well, infertile couples don't show up at the emergency room. Just as Obama is trying to make birth control an entitlement, Romney made IVF an entitlement. The difference is that IVF can be ten times Flukes inflated costs for birth control.

Nor, can I let it pass that some of the couples seeking IVF are doing so because of a past STD. What did you write about condoms and STDs again?
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32371


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2012, 01:31:17 am »
Ignore

Romney does have authentic views on certain economic issues, where he has far right positions that mostly consist of cutting his own taxes and enriching himself and some of his fellow fatcats. On issues like this that Romney doesn't care about, he does need focus testing. One should not mistake Romney's flip flops and lack of leadership as being non far right-wing.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32371


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2012, 01:32:28 am »
Ignore

Obama never ran as a New Democrat. HRC was the New Democrat of the two. Obama was much more of a populist from the start. In the Senate he was one of the most liberal members. His campaign was the most leftwing winning campaign since 1964. It was very naive to think that Obama would govern like Clinton did. And I doubt even Bill Clinton would have done things very different. This isn't the 1990's.

Obama ran a center-left campaign and has had a center-right administration.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12916


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2012, 01:35:30 am »
Ignore

At this point I would like to ask if any of us are aware of the non-contraceptive health effects of hormonal birth control and why some women might need or want them.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines