The Official Mitt Romney Thread III

[Excel]

dick morris and michael graham, who predicted romney blow outs....yeah.

 

[stillanerd]

Apparently Romney campaign staff insiders told Politico that Christie was Romney's first choice for VP, and then he went with Ryan 2 weeks later. They also went on to more or less say his embracing Obama during Sandy was because he felt jilted.

You can never tell if "insider" stories or true or not. However when you toss on the threat from Fox news owner to Christie if he doesn't politicize this in Romney's favor, and it's getting sad. Government actually does it's job, and gets bashed for working too well across the aisles. No wonder things never get done, when even when they do work together it becomes a political target.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83254.html

Sort of a related note, Chris Christie's endorsement of Romney was, I believe, the only reason why Ann Coutler supported Romney in this election and why she claimed Romney was "the most conservative candidate" whereas during C-PAC, she said Romney was a moderate and said Chris Christie was the best candidate the Republicans should put up for President.

I'm honestly kind of surprised Romney is as close as he is. I can understand lack of enthusiasm for Obama this time around, but I don't see what about Romney makes anyone think he's a good Presidential candidate.

Well the Republicans view Obama as the anti-Reagan.

Most Democrats are rather disengaged and disillusioned.

That's enough to make it a close race.

That and Republicans dislike Obama so much that they will vote for anyone besides him. Its the same as in 2004, when Democrats voted for John Kerry. They didnt like him but at least he wasnt George Bush.

That and the economy is still weak, which favored Romney, but Obama polled better with working and middle class voters in spite of this because they saw him as having a better understanding of what they were going through than Mitt, who never could shake the fact that he was a "rich businessman" supported by other "rich businessmen."

You know, Dick Morris is like a reverse Cassandra. Every prediction he makes ends up wrong.

Case in point: his book on for who would run in the 2008 Presidential Election.

 

[Destructus86]

It's a bit unfortunate that Obama couldn't be replaced. Obama so casually tramples the constitution. Not to mention the fact the Obama administration were the ones involved with some seriously corrupt GMO deals.

(http://www.naturalnews.com/033387_Obama_GMOs.html)

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

How the crap is Obama trampling the Constitution?

 

[Schlosser85]

Well, there is his continuation of the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act (lol for wildly inappropriate names), and his granting the right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.

 

[Kelly]

Sort of a related note, Chris Christie's endorsement of Romney was, I believe, the only reason why Ann Coutler supported Romney in this election and why she claimed Romney was "the most conservative candidate" whereas during C-PAC, she said Romney was a moderate and said Chris Christie was the best candidate the Republicans should put up for President.







That and the economy is still weak, which favored Romney, but Obama polled better with working and middle class voters in spite of this because they saw him as having a better understanding of what they were going through than Mitt, who never could shake the fact that he was a "rich businessman" supported by other "rich businessmen."



Case in point: his book on for who would run in the 2008 Presidential Election.

Aw ****, I think my head would explode.....but it would for once be nice to actually "like" both candidates and not be voting for the lesser of the two evils, or having to write in a vote. I would actually have a choice....so bring it on. Won't happen, but nice to dream....

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Morris lost his credibility when he said McCain suspending his campaign (after the economy tanked) to rejoin Senate to solve the crisis sealed his winning the presidency.

I can't hold the Hilary v. Condi thing as much because all of us thought the former was getting the nomination.

 

[ShaDynasty]

How the crap is Obama trampling the Constitution?

The HHS mandate that requires Catholic schools and hospitals to provide free contraception to their employees is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not; it's unconstitutional. Catholic teaching forbids the use of contraception and forcing Catholic institutions to pay for it violates the First Amendment.

 

[The Overlord]

It's a bit unfortunate that Obama couldn't be replaced. Obama so casually tramples the constitution. Not to mention the fact the Obama administration were the ones involved with some seriously corrupt GMO deals.

(http://www.naturalnews.com/033387_Obama_GMOs.html)

The Republicans and the neo conservatives seem to trample on the constitution a lot during the Bush Administration, did you complain about that? Also why wouldn't the GOP trample on the constitution again, when they did so during the Bush administration?

 

[Sun_Down]

The HHS mandate that requires Catholic schools and hospitals to provide free contraception to their employees is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not; it's unconstitutional. Catholic teaching forbids the use of contraception and forcing Catholic institutions to pay for it violates the First Amendment.

Health care is not speech. The Catholic church is still allowed to speak out against contraception. Their First Amendment rights are not implicated in any way, shape or form. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion; again, no First Amendment issues whatsoever. Care to try again?

 

[stillanerd]

The HHS mandate that requires Catholic schools and hospitals to provide free contraception to their employees is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not; it's unconstitutional. Catholic teaching forbids the use of contraception and forcing Catholic institutions to pay for it violates the First Amendment.

Precisely. The very first clause of the First Amendment flat-out says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and, from the Catholic perspective, the HHS Mandate is essentially telling Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities which are run by the Church "you not allowed to practice what you preach."

 

[Anita18]

The HHS mandate that requires Catholic schools and hospitals to provide free contraception to their employees is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not; it's unconstitutional. Catholic teaching forbids the use of contraception and forcing Catholic institutions to pay for it violates the First Amendment.

The Catholic institutions wouldn't be paying for the contraception, their health insurers would. The law would just force them to make it available.

Also, don't 98% of Catholics agree with contraception? Maybe it's time for the folks in charge to get with the times.

Thirdly, freedom of religion doesn't mean doing whatever the eff they want. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses can let their children die since they don't believe in blood transfusions is pretty heinous too. On the most basic level, freedom of religion means they're free to practice their religion without being persecuted for it. Thinking that forcing Catholic institutions to make contraception available is equal to the kind of persecution that the founding fathers were trying to escape (ie, execution for not following the right religion), is really reaching IMO.

 

[stillanerd]

Health care is not speech. The Catholic church is still allowed to speak out against contraception. Their First Amendment rights are not implicated in any way, shape or form. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion; again, no First Amendment issues whatsoever. Care to try again?

But you forget there is a SECOND part to the First Amendment when it comes to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That's the part Catholics are saying is what makes the HHS Mandate unconstitutional--because it's the Federal Government demanding that Catholic schools, hospitals, charities, etc. must, by force of law, provide artificial contraceptives and abortifaciants as part of their health plans, even though the Church says that doing so is a grave sin. It's telling them they are not allowed to practice what they believe, i.e. "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

[ShaDynasty]

Health care is not speech. The Catholic church is still allowed to speak out against contraception. Their First Amendment rights are not implicated in any way, shape or form. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion; again, no First Amendment issues whatsoever. Care to try again?

Your arrogance is surprisingly palpable. I wonder if you understand all parts of the First Amendment, specifically when it states that "Congress shall make no law concerning religion of the obstruction thereof..." Seeing as the Catholic Church teaches against the use of contraception, forcing Catholic institutions to provide for something it SPECIFICALLY TEACHES AGAINST sounds like violating that Amendment...hm. Maybe you should read the Constitution?

Care to try again?

 

[Anita18]

Your arrogance is surprisingly palpable. I wonder if you understand all parts of the First Amendment, specifically when it states that "Congress shall make no law concerning religion of the obstruction thereof..." Seeing as the Catholic Church teaches against the use of contraception, forcing Catholic institutions to provide for something it SPECIFICALLY TEACHES AGAINST sounds like violating that Amendment...hm. Maybe you should read the Constitution?

Care to try again?

I don't think the founding fathers foresaw that there would be ramifications in healthcare when it came to religious freedoms. The times have changed.

Does that mean that throwing acid on women should be allowed if their religion called for it, if they felt the woman had committed some kind of sin? Please. It's still religious freedom, right?

 

[Bathead]

Your arrogance is surprisingly palpable. I wonder if you understand all parts of the First Amendment, specifically when it states that "Congress shall make no law concerning religion of the obstruction thereof..." Seeing as the Catholic Church teaches against the use of contraception, forcing Catholic institutions to provide for something it SPECIFICALLY TEACHES AGAINST sounds like violating that Amendment...hm. Maybe you should read the Constitution?

Care to try again?

That's not what's happening. It's not the church they're forcing, it's the insurance companies.
Care to try again?

 

[ShaDynasty]

The Catholic institutions wouldn't be paying for the contraception, their health insurers would. The law would just force them to make it available.

Also, don't 98% of Catholics agree with contraception? Maybe it's time for the folks in charge to get with the times.

Thirdly, freedom of religion doesn't mean doing whatever the eff they want. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses can let their children die since they don't believe in blood transfusions is pretty heinous too. On the most basic level, freedom of religion means they're free to practice their religion without being persecuted for it. Thinking that forcing Catholic institutions to make contraception available is equal to the kind of persecution that the founding fathers were trying to escape (ie, execution for not following the right religion), is really reaching IMO.

Your post is incredibly out of touch. Comparing a teaching against contraception to that of Jehovah's Witnesses not allowed to do blood transfusions is insulting to me, seeing as I am a Catholic. And 98% of Catholics do not support contraception, I'd like to see your source on that. Just because you think contraception is okay doesn't mean the Church is old and crotchety because it doesn't.

It doesn't matter what persecution the Founding Fathers were trying to escape. The First Amendment prohibits the very thing the HHS mandate is doing. "Congress shall make NO LAW CONCERNING RELIGION..." Man that really seems to imply they didn't want any mingling between Church and State, huh?

 

[ShaDynasty]

I don't think the founding fathers foresaw that there would be ramifications in healthcare when it came to religious freedoms. The times have changed.

Does that mean that throwing acid on women should be allowed if their religion called for it, if they felt the woman had committed some kind of sin? Please. It's still religious freedom, right?

That is a ridiculous analogy, once again. You're comparing not using contraception to a violent crime. It's not. Throwing acid on a woman is a crime. Not using contraception is not. Do I need to say it again?

Dear God you have terrible analogies.

 

[ShaDynasty]

That's not what's happening. It's not the church they're forcing, it's the insurance companies.
Care to try again?

I understand that. But Catholic employers will be forced to provide their employees with things they deem, as a result of their religion, immoral. Which is a violation of the First Amendment. Only liberals would be so myopic as to not see that.

 

[Anita18]

I understand that. But Catholic employers will be forced to provide their employees with things they deem, as a result of their religion, immoral. Which is a violation of the First Amendment. Only liberals would be so myopic as to not see that.

Can't they require that all their employees be Catholic? Then all this would be moot, since everyone who'd work at a Catholic institution wouldn't want contraception anyway. (I know they can't, but at least it would make this whole thing a lot less complicated!)

And I'm not equating acid throwing or blood transfusions with contraception availability. But we ARE talking about religious freedom, right? If we were truly free about religion, we should allow all of that because otherwise we'd be preventing the practice of their religion. Just taking it to the logical conclusion.

 

[ShaDynasty]

Can't they require that all their employees be Catholic? Then all this would be moot, since everyone who'd work at a Catholic institution wouldn't want contraception anyway. (I know they can't, but at least it would make this whole thing a lot less complicated!)

And I'm not equating acid throwing or blood transfusions with contraception availability. But we ARE talking about religious freedom, right? If we were truly free about religion, we should allow all of that because otherwise we'd be preventing the practice of their religion. Just taking it to the logical conclusion.

So since we shouldn't allow acid-throwing or no blood transfusions, we shouldn't allow Catholic employers to oppose violations of their First Amendment rights, let alone their consciences?

 

[stillanerd]

The Catholic institutions wouldn't be paying for the contraception, their health insurers would. The law would just force them to make it available.

But some of those insurance companies are themselves Catholic and many Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities are self-insured. Which means, in those cases, they would still be paying for contraception and abortifacient provisions.

Also, don't 98% of Catholics agree with contraception? Maybe it's time for the folks in charge to get with the times.

So basically "If everyone is jumping off the cliff, then you should to" school of thought? But in all seriousness, if 98% of Catholics are using some form of birth control, doesn't that itself mean that, contrary to what has been argued, that birth control is already widely available and affordable regardless of one's insurance plan?

Thirdly, freedom of religion doesn't mean doing whatever the eff they want. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses can let their children die since they don't believe in blood transfusions is pretty heinous too. On the most basic level, freedom of religion means they're free to practice their religion without being persecuted for it. Thinking that forcing Catholic institutions to make contraception available is equal to the kind of persecution that the founding fathers were trying to escape (ie, execution for not following the right religion), is really reaching IMO.

We may think, regarding the example of the Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist, that while it's wrong of them not let their kids or loved ones get blood transfusions which would save their life, it's still their choice. Just like when any patient or the next of kin is told by a doctor or medical professional what life-saving procedures are available, it's ultimately up to that patient or next of kin to decide for themselves whether or not to go through with the procedure. For instance, a doctor who attempts to perform a life-saving surgery to save someone's life without consulting the patient or the family first risks facing a lawsuit, especially if the patient dies.

And the reason why the Catholic Church believes that the HHS mandate forcing Catholic institutions to make available artificial conception and abortifacients infringes on their First Amendment rights is simple. According to the Catholic Church, if something is regarded as a mortal or grave sin--such as artificial contraception or abortion--and a Catholic, especially a faithful and practicing Catholic, allows the ways and means for someone else to potentially commit a mortal or grave sin--such as providing the means for them to get contraception or an abortion--then that Catholic has themselves committed a mortal or grave sin; and, according to the Church, it's potentially an even worse sin for the Catholic than the person who used the contraceptives or got themselves an abortion because that Catholic, especially the faithful and practicing Catholic, should have known better. Basically, from the Catholic perspective, the Mandate is forcing them, by punishment of law, to commit a grave and mortal sin by allowing the ways and means for other people to commit grave and mortal sin.

 

[Kelly]

The Republicans and the neo conservatives seem to trample on the constitution a lot during the Bush Administration, did you complain about that? Also why wouldn't the GOP trample on the constitution again, when they did so during the Bush administration?

Two wrongs don't make it right, it simply makes it really wrong.

This kind of debate is so childish....it reminds me of,

"Well she did it first" mentality.

It is amazing.

 

[ShaDynasty]

But some of those insurance companies are themselves Catholic and many Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities are self-insured. Which means, in those cases, they would still be paying for contraception and abortifacient provisions.

So basically "If everyone is jumping off the cliff, then you should to" school of thought? But in all seriousness, if 98% of Catholics are using some form of birth control, doesn't that itself mean that, contrary to what has been argued, that birth control is already widely available and affordable regardless of one's insurance plan?

We may think, regarding the example of the Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist, that while it's wrong of them not let their kids or loved ones get blood transfusions which would save their life, it's still their choice. Just like when any patient or the next of kin is told by a doctor or medical professional what life-saving procedures are available, it's ultimately up to that patient or next of kin to decide for themselves whether or not to go through with the procedure. A doctor, for instance, who attempts to perform a life-saving surgery to save someone's life without consulting the patient or the family first risks facing a lawsuit, especially if the patient dies.

And the reason why the Catholic Church believes that the HHS mandate forcing Catholic institutions to make available artificial conception and abortifacients infringes on their First Amendment rights is simple. According to the Catholic Church, if something is regarded as a mortal or grave sin--such as artificial contraception or abortion--and a Catholic, especially a faithful and practicing Catholic, allows the ways and means for someone else to potentially commit a mortal or grave sin--such as providing the means for them to get contraception or an abortion--then that Catholic has themselves committed a mortal or grave sin; and, according to the Church, it's potentially an even worse sin for the Catholic than the person who used the contraceptives or got themselves an abortion because that Catholic, especially the faithful and practicing Catholic, should have known better. Basically, from the Catholic perspective, the Mandate is forcing them, by punishment of law, to commit a grave and mortal sin by by allowing the ways and means for other people to commit grave and mortal sin.

Incredibly well said.

 

[Doctor Evo]

What do you mean when you say, "abortifacients," and where in this mandate are they being provided?