Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why don't Liberals Hate Mitt Romney?

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Oct 2011, 8:47 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
DC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, I think he did have a political philosophy at one time - he was a moderate Republican, who could get himself elected in a blue state. But because Republicans like him are now a thing of the past, much like dinosaurs and wooly mammoths, he's had to throw away everything he had believed in in order to satisfy the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.


Shouldn't that be 'lunatic Republican party' not 'lunatic fringe'?


No, what has actually gone the way of the dinosaurs and the wooly mammoths are centrists, period! (regardless of party affiliation).

As for 2011:
    there is 0 democrats with a more conservative voting record then the most liberal republican
    there is 0 republicans with a more liberal voting record then the most conservative democrat

Romney is not just a dying breed in the GOP. The Democrats barely break from the party orthodoxy, and helped make 2010 the most partisan year in the last 30 years. Romney's "centrist" comparison from left of center could be Ron Wyden or Gabrielle Giffords, Joe Lieberman, Max Bucacas, or Ben Nelson, but for dominating last year's House and Senate, you think there would be a few more moderates but there aren't any. There is no way in the world one can be against increasing taxes on the rich and supporting domestic off-shore drilling and be allowed by the left to be called a Democrat. Ideological purity is just as strong on the other side(if not stronger) of the isle and Democrats have no interest in running anything less then a progressive who will not bend for the political center or for the right.

If Boehner and company, Palin, or Bachmann are fringe in one direction, then Barney Frank, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Charles Rangel are "fringe" in the other since they portion of the electorate that their positions and opinions represent is not very large... certainly not large enough to warrant as much exposure as they have.


Ever hear of Mary Landrue (spelling) in Louisiana? She is pretty representative of her conservative voters.
And by the way, I consider Frank, Reid, Rangel, etc. as pretty mainstream, with a lot of popular support, considering that they want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and make healthcare available to all Americans.
I really don't know how many of Perry's or Bachmann's ordinary, run-of-the mill voters would continue to support them if they knew how such politicians were planning to extend the income tax to middle class and poor people. Pretty extreme if you ask me, and not the kind of politicians who would inspire people to follow them, were they informed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What part of unconstitutional do you not understand.

If Government is allowed to tell people they have to enter into a contract simply because they are alive, then we have no rights. The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is you choose to buy a car, short of committing suicide you can't choose to have your heart stop beating. People have the right to choose not to participate in commerce.


The supposed unconstitutionality of healthcare isn't the point of my post - rather, it's that healthcare reform has great popular support, regardless of what Republicans claim.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Just because an idea is popular doesn't mean it should be implimented, especially when it is unconstitutional.


Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was considered unconstitutional in its day, but without it, the United States may to this day have been restricted to the east coast. Sometimes, the president has to take charge and do the what's best for the country, rather than being hindered by the letter of the law.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Giving Government the power to dictate what products we have to buy and have control of what we eat, how we live, etc., is not what is best for this country.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Oct 2011, 8:49 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Mitt Romney is a tea party favorite so Liberals will not like him its that simple I just think he is a bit weird


Are you sure about the tea party thing? I had always heard that they considered him a phony conservative, and so have been keeping him back from them with a ten foot pole. That, and because evangelicals are so prominent among the tea baggers, they are more than a little suspicious of his Mormonism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That to but I know I lot of evangelicals who would rather support a moron president then a president they think is a Muslim I have muslim friends so I dont care what religion anyone is I care about my religion thats it :lol:

Plus a lot of republicans on facebook support Mitt Romney


More and more Republicans are taking a second look at Newt Gingrich, whom actually has a pretty good plan and a record of getting things accomplished.


Mitt Romney is a likeable guy this Newt Gingrich guy is a big fake he gets things done in a very underhanded way.


Plus, as far as I am aware, Gingrich is still operating without a staff, all of whom had deserted him after his misstatements and flip flopping on his original opposition to the heartless Ryan plan which had cost him all credibility.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did he flip-flop, or was it the result of still being in Analyst mode from his previous job. You should be careful Kraichgauer, one reporter tried to nail him on ''the staff quitting' ended up with egg in his face.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_DEgfkiqY[/youtube]


No egg on my face. Gingrich failed to answer the question satisfactorily. Instead, he ranted about President Obama to draw attention away from his flailing campaign. And by the way, his staffers didn't leave because of mismanagement on their part, but do to his own.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually he pointed out that it happens to campaigns a lot, and they're making a big deal out of nothing. Furthermore, you need to see the beginning of the debate again where it was stated that they should be focusing on the current crisis occurring.


And there have been campaigns that have died because of such mismanagement, regardless of what Gingrich chooses to ignore.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

01 Oct 2011, 8:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
DC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, I think he did have a political philosophy at one time - he was a moderate Republican, who could get himself elected in a blue state. But because Republicans like him are now a thing of the past, much like dinosaurs and wooly mammoths, he's had to throw away everything he had believed in in order to satisfy the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.


Shouldn't that be 'lunatic Republican party' not 'lunatic fringe'?


No, what has actually gone the way of the dinosaurs and the wooly mammoths are centrists, period! (regardless of party affiliation).

As for 2011:
    there is 0 democrats with a more conservative voting record then the most liberal republican
    there is 0 republicans with a more liberal voting record then the most conservative democrat

Romney is not just a dying breed in the GOP. The Democrats barely break from the party orthodoxy, and helped make 2010 the most partisan year in the last 30 years. Romney's "centrist" comparison from left of center could be Ron Wyden or Gabrielle Giffords, Joe Lieberman, Max Bucacas, or Ben Nelson, but for dominating last year's House and Senate, you think there would be a few more moderates but there aren't any. There is no way in the world one can be against increasing taxes on the rich and supporting domestic off-shore drilling and be allowed by the left to be called a Democrat. Ideological purity is just as strong on the other side(if not stronger) of the isle and Democrats have no interest in running anything less then a progressive who will not bend for the political center or for the right.

If Boehner and company, Palin, or Bachmann are fringe in one direction, then Barney Frank, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Charles Rangel are "fringe" in the other since they portion of the electorate that their positions and opinions represent is not very large... certainly not large enough to warrant as much exposure as they have.


Ever hear of Mary Landrue (spelling) in Louisiana? She is pretty representative of her conservative voters.
And by the way, I consider Frank, Reid, Rangel, etc. as pretty mainstream, with a lot of popular support, considering that they want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and make healthcare available to all Americans.
I really don't know how many of Perry's or Bachmann's ordinary, run-of-the mill voters would continue to support them if they knew how such politicians were planning to extend the income tax to middle class and poor people. Pretty extreme if you ask me, and not the kind of politicians who would inspire people to follow them, were they informed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


they are party figure-heads whose progressive agenda showcase the route to progress but in no way represent America... that's the problem with our dysfunctional political culture... moderates get no airtime whereas Reid and Frank who vote 90% of the time more liberal then the rest of his party are interviewed and given craploads of airtime. The same is true of Boehner, his voting record is also 90% or more conservative then all of congress.

Who would give a crap about Ben Nelson, Max Bucacas, Joe Lieberman, or Olympia Snowe Susan Collins and Scott Brown if they weren't doing something that could piss their party off? That's the only time a moderate gets time on television or the blogosphere is if their voting could hurt the Dems or GOP. But they should be the leaders of congress as their voting which tends to be 60% with their party, and 40% with the other party is far far far far more representative of America then Harry Ried, Ben Cardin, Carl Levin, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Jim Demint, Tom Coburn, John McCain, and John Thune.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Oct 2011, 8:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
DC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, I think he did have a political philosophy at one time - he was a moderate Republican, who could get himself elected in a blue state. But because Republicans like him are now a thing of the past, much like dinosaurs and wooly mammoths, he's had to throw away everything he had believed in in order to satisfy the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.


Shouldn't that be 'lunatic Republican party' not 'lunatic fringe'?


No, what has actually gone the way of the dinosaurs and the wooly mammoths are centrists, period! (regardless of party affiliation).

As for 2011:
    there is 0 democrats with a more conservative voting record then the most liberal republican
    there is 0 republicans with a more liberal voting record then the most conservative democrat

Romney is not just a dying breed in the GOP. The Democrats barely break from the party orthodoxy, and helped make 2010 the most partisan year in the last 30 years. Romney's "centrist" comparison from left of center could be Ron Wyden or Gabrielle Giffords, Joe Lieberman, Max Bucacas, or Ben Nelson, but for dominating last year's House and Senate, you think there would be a few more moderates but there aren't any. There is no way in the world one can be against increasing taxes on the rich and supporting domestic off-shore drilling and be allowed by the left to be called a Democrat. Ideological purity is just as strong on the other side(if not stronger) of the isle and Democrats have no interest in running anything less then a progressive who will not bend for the political center or for the right.

If Boehner and company, Palin, or Bachmann are fringe in one direction, then Barney Frank, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Charles Rangel are "fringe" in the other since they portion of the electorate that their positions and opinions represent is not very large... certainly not large enough to warrant as much exposure as they have.


Ever hear of Mary Landrue (spelling) in Louisiana? She is pretty representative of her conservative voters.
And by the way, I consider Frank, Reid, Rangel, etc. as pretty mainstream, with a lot of popular support, considering that they want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and make healthcare available to all Americans.
I really don't know how many of Perry's or Bachmann's ordinary, run-of-the mill voters would continue to support them if they knew how such politicians were planning to extend the income tax to middle class and poor people. Pretty extreme if you ask me, and not the kind of politicians who would inspire people to follow them, were they informed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What part of unconstitutional do you not understand.

If Government is allowed to tell people they have to enter into a contract simply because they are alive, then we have no rights. The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is you choose to buy a car, short of committing suicide you can't choose to have your heart stop beating. People have the right to choose not to participate in commerce.


The supposed unconstitutionality of healthcare isn't the point of my post - rather, it's that healthcare reform has great popular support, regardless of what Republicans claim.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Just because an idea is popular doesn't mean it should be implimented, especially when it is unconstitutional.


Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was considered unconstitutional in its day, but without it, the United States may to this day have been restricted to the east coast. Sometimes, the president has to take charge and do the what's best for the country, rather than being hindered by the letter of the law.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Giving Government the power to dictate what products we have to buy and have control of what we eat, how we live, etc., is not what is best for this country.


It most certainly is for the best of the country, considering that the health of the American people would greatly improve.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Oct 2011, 9:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

It most certainly is for the best of the country, considering that the health of the American people would greatly improve.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


A government that can harass of punish if people do not eat right can do the same if they don't think "right". Do you want health-nazis running your life?

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Oct 2011, 10:16 pm

No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Oct 2011, 10:18 pm

Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Oct 2011, 10:25 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Oct 2011, 10:36 pm

Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Oct 2011, 10:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

It most certainly is for the best of the country, considering that the health of the American people would greatly improve.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


A government that can harass of punish if people do not eat right can do the same if they don't think "right". Do you want health-nazis running your life?

ruveyn


Oh, no, I'm not talking about the government telling us what to eat. Rather, it's a matter of everyone having the right to receive medical care, regardless of how much money they have.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Oct 2011, 10:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.


But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.

WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,800
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Oct 2011, 11:00 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
DC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Oh, I think he did have a political philosophy at one time - he was a moderate Republican, who could get himself elected in a blue state. But because Republicans like him are now a thing of the past, much like dinosaurs and wooly mammoths, he's had to throw away everything he had believed in in order to satisfy the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.


Shouldn't that be 'lunatic Republican party' not 'lunatic fringe'?


No, what has actually gone the way of the dinosaurs and the wooly mammoths are centrists, period! (regardless of party affiliation).

As for 2011:
    there is 0 democrats with a more conservative voting record then the most liberal republican
    there is 0 republicans with a more liberal voting record then the most conservative democrat

Romney is not just a dying breed in the GOP. The Democrats barely break from the party orthodoxy, and helped make 2010 the most partisan year in the last 30 years. Romney's "centrist" comparison from left of center could be Ron Wyden or Gabrielle Giffords, Joe Lieberman, Max Bucacas, or Ben Nelson, but for dominating last year's House and Senate, you think there would be a few more moderates but there aren't any. There is no way in the world one can be against increasing taxes on the rich and supporting domestic off-shore drilling and be allowed by the left to be called a Democrat. Ideological purity is just as strong on the other side(if not stronger) of the isle and Democrats have no interest in running anything less then a progressive who will not bend for the political center or for the right.

If Boehner and company, Palin, or Bachmann are fringe in one direction, then Barney Frank, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Charles Rangel are "fringe" in the other since they portion of the electorate that their positions and opinions represent is not very large... certainly not large enough to warrant as much exposure as they have.


Ever hear of Mary Landrue (spelling) in Louisiana? She is pretty representative of her conservative voters.
And by the way, I consider Frank, Reid, Rangel, etc. as pretty mainstream, with a lot of popular support, considering that they want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and make healthcare available to all Americans.
I really don't know how many of Perry's or Bachmann's ordinary, run-of-the mill voters would continue to support them if they knew how such politicians were planning to extend the income tax to middle class and poor people. Pretty extreme if you ask me, and not the kind of politicians who would inspire people to follow them, were they informed.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


they are party figure-heads whose progressive agenda showcase the route to progress but in no way represent America... that's the problem with our dysfunctional political culture... moderates get no airtime whereas Reid and Frank who vote 90% of the time more liberal then the rest of his party are interviewed and given craploads of airtime. The same is true of Boehner, his voting record is also 90% or more conservative then all of congress.

Who would give a crap about Ben Nelson, Max Bucacas, Joe Lieberman, or Olympia Snowe Susan Collins and Scott Brown if they weren't doing something that could piss their party off? That's the only time a moderate gets time on television or the blogosphere is if their voting could hurt the Dems or GOP. But they should be the leaders of congress as their voting which tends to be 60% with their party, and 40% with the other party is far far far far more representative of America then Harry Ried, Ben Cardin, Carl Levin, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Jim Demint, Tom Coburn, John McCain, and John Thune.


I don't think that the liberal politicians you mentioned are so outside the mainsteam of the constituency.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Oct 2011, 11:01 pm

Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.


But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.

WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.


Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.

Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Oct 2011, 11:03 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.


But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.

WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.


Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.

Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain


If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing :wink:



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Oct 2011, 11:08 pm

Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.


But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.

WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.


Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.

Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain


If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing :wink:


But increasing taxes actually hurts those that are going up out of poverty or going from middle class to being wealthy, cause the rich already have their money. You're just locking people into a class system.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 Oct 2011, 11:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
No one decides whats best for me or whats best for my health that's my decision to make not the government.


Well if the individual mandate is Constitutional, Government can do precisely that.


Then I will gladly rebel against the Government the Constitution is very overrated in my views its the security blanket of America.

I support our military I do not support the Government.


Actually, I think the US Supreme Court (barring Obama being able to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies due to "sudden departures" of Justices) is going to find the Individual Mandate and possibly all of Obamacare unconstitutional.

The Constitution is an amazing document, it puts into writing limits on the powers of Government, and is a safeguard for our rights.


But it doesn't secure our rights not for the lower or middle class America that gets treated second rate compared to the higher class and wealthy.

WHO PAY MORE TAXES THEN THE RICH.


Well what you are proposing would lock people into the middle class or poverty, because you would hit anyone that made a lot of money suddenly so they couldn't go from middle class to wealthy.

Look at Herman Cain for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain


If you lived in the Ghetto all your life you would want the same thing :wink:


But increasing taxes actually hurts those that are going up out of poverty or going from middle class to being wealthy, cause the rich already have their money. You're just locking people into a class system.


No my friend I have been in a class system because of the hand outs the rich get and it doesnt hurt the economy it hurts the middle class and lower class when the rich get their tax breaks when they should pay more then we do