Topic: Source: Obama to declare victory early in effort to demoralize Romney voters

[John Florida]

Romney voters have waited too long to get to this day to get sucked in by this bush league stunt.

[IronDioPriest]

Assuming that people elect politicians to enact the will of the electorate, then Mitt Romney and the Democrat state legislature moved forward and enacted a plan that the people of Massachusetts wanted.

The sad reality is, whether you or I agree that a state should not be in the business of health care or funding mandates, the people of Massachusetts have supported the Romney health care law by roughly 2/3 to 1/3 since its inception.

The Tyranny of the Majority is still Tyranny. The Majority do not have the right to impinge upon the inalienable rights of the individual.  It is ALWAYS immoral to do so, and anyone who would vote to allow it, shouldn't be allowed to continue breathing, much less be President of the United States.  Before the Civil War there was a Majority in those States that wanted to continue slavery as well, did that make the ownership of men legitimate? There is no difference between letting a private citizen own a man vs. giving the government ownership of him on behalf of a group of slavers.

I agree. But within your argument is mine. Regardless of how you or I feel about the morality of the Massachusetts government enacting a universal health care law; regardless of the rightness of our argument against it; the will of the majority was indeed enacted.

That makes a comparison with ObamaCare specious at best, because that was never the case with ObamaCare. Not then, not now. The people of the country have always been squarely against it, and have voted at least one election cycle to express their disapproval, and appear to be poised to do so again, now.

It seems to me that in all Mitt Romney's ventures, one thing stands out: successful leadership. Whether it be in private enterprise, governor of Massachusetts, or the SLC Olympics, he has shown the ability to look at a problem, discern the dynamics of the problem and the people involved, roll up his sleeves, and bring people along with him to get to work on solving the problem.

Now, I don't have faith or trust, but I have hope. I'm willing to give the guy a shot.

[Weisshaupt]

I agree. But within your argument is mine. Regardless of how you or I feel about the morality of the Massachusetts government enacting a universal health care law; regardless of the rightness of our argument against it; the will of the majority was indeed enacted.

Sure. But the number of people willing to enslave others has no bearing upon the morality.  Numbers do not make the act  legitimate or moral. Romney did not act to stop it, and in fact agreed to to it. That is the sort of moral "leadership"  we can expect from him. Its the same "go along to get along" crap we have always gotten, and its not going to cut it in the coming crisis. Mitten might very well have a record of solving problems, but I have little faith that he has any moral compass in doing so. Its entirely likely he will see seizing and investing every IRA and 401K in the country in govt debt as a  "moral" solution to our funding problems. After all, if Mittens thinks the good  (or will) of the community comes before the good (or will) of the individual, in true fascist fashion,  then there is nothing he can't do.

[IronDioPriest]

I agree. But within your argument is mine. Regardless of how you or I feel about the morality of the Massachusetts government enacting a universal health care law; regardless of the rightness of our argument against it; the will of the majority was indeed enacted.

Sure. But the number of people willing to enslave others has no bearing upon the morality.  Numbers do not make the act legitimate or moral. Romney did not act to stop it, and in fact agreed to to it. That is the sort of moral "leadership" we can expect from him. ...

Or... this is a different set of challenges, and he understands and honors the difference between being the popularly elected governor of a deep-blue state and the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and will thus act accordingly.

Look, I get it. Skepticism runs deep in me. All I'm saying is that when comparing RomneyCare to ObamaCare, there is a distinct difference that cannot be ignored. My hope is that in accordance with his campaign rhetoric, Romney is aware of that difference and will govern accordingly.

[radioman]

We forget that the Massachusetts version of obamacare did not have 2,800 pages of taxes and regulations. Please, there is more separating the two than there is in common.

[Weisshaupt]

Or... this is a different set of challenges, and he understands and honors the difference between being the popularly elected governor of a deep-blue state and the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and will thus act accordingly.

And the difference is? This is like saying that if Lincoln was a governor in the South his acceptance of slavery in that situation would be okay, but then expecting he will do the right thing and fight the Civil War when he becomes President. Its moral relativism at its finest. The Morality of this doesn't depend on the situation. If Romney's support of individual rights is dependent upon what the majority of his constituency thinks- then he is morally degenerate and any hope of him doing the right thing relies on the slenderest of threads.  There is no moral difference between RomneyCare and Obamacare, any more than there was a moral difference between slavery in the Northern States ( who voluntarily abolished it) and Slavery in the Southern States ( who refused and tried to expand the practice.) If the difference is the  number of people willing to enslave the others around them- then  that number is growing with each new person on welfare, and Romney will bow to them, and not to any moral principle.  The man is  a snake, and we would do well to remember it.

[Weisshaupt]

We forget that the Massachusetts version of obamacare did not have 2,800 pages of taxes and regulations. Please, there is more separating the two than there is in common.

And if Obamacare was word-for-word the same as Romneycare that would make it acceptable? It would make it any less repugnant or wrong?
The inalienable rights of every individual are still violated by each - the degree of the violation being irrelevant, the principles behind each being identical.  If it takes 70 pages or 2300 pages to violate your rights and lay you prostrate before them, does it make any material difference?

[IronDioPriest]

Or... this is a different set of challenges, and he understands and honors the difference between being the popularly elected governor of a deep-blue state and the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and will thus act accordingly.

And the difference is? This is like saying that if Lincoln was a governor in the South his acceptance of slavery in that situation would be okay, but then expecting he will do the right thing and fight the Civil War when he becomes President. Its moral relativism at its finest. The Morality of this doesn't depend on the situation. If Romney's support of individual rights is dependent upon what the majority of his constituency thinks- then he is morally degenerate and any hope of him doing the right thing relies on the slenderest of threads.  There is no moral difference between RomneyCare and Obamacare, any more than there was a moral difference between slavery in the Northern States ( who voluntarily abolished it) and Slavery in the Southern States ( who refused and tried to expand the practice.) If the difference is the  number of people willing to enslave the others around them- then  that number is growing with each new person on welfare, and Romney will bow to them, and not to any moral principle.  The man is  a snake, and we would do well to remember it.

I'm now officially too drunk to argue with you any further.

[Pandora]

Or... this is a different set of challenges, and he understands and honors the difference between being the popularly elected governor of a deep-blue state and the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and will thus act accordingly.

And the difference is? This is like saying that if Lincoln was a governor in the South his acceptance of slavery in that situation would be okay, but then expecting he will do the right thing and fight the Civil War when he becomes President. Its moral relativism at its finest. The Morality of this doesn't depend on the situation. If Romney's support of individual rights is dependent upon what the majority of his constituency thinks- then he is morally degenerate and any hope of him doing the right thing relies on the slenderest of threads.  There is no moral difference between RomneyCare and Obamacare, any more than there was a moral difference between slavery in the Northern States ( who voluntarily abolished it) and Slavery in the Southern States ( who refused and tried to expand the practice.) If the difference is the  number of people willing to enslave the others around them- then  that number is growing with each new person on welfare, and Romney will bow to them, and not to any moral principle.  The man is  a snake, and we would do well to remember it.

I'm now officially too drunk to argue with you any further.

LOL.  Better cook up and get around some of that steak then.

[Glock32]

I agree with Weisshaupt.  It's not right for 2 wolves and 1 sheep to vote on the dinner menu, nor is it right for 100 wolves and 1 sheep to vote on the dinner menu.  The numbers involved have no bearing on the morality of the act.

I think we all are so eager to have anyone defeat Obama we tend to gloss over Romney's own statist tendencies. But that said, I think he has genuinely seen the grave dangers in the direction Obama and the Democrats are dragging us and is alarmed into wanting to do something about it. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. It's not like there is any acceptable alternative anyway.

[radioman]

We forget that the Massachusetts version of obamacare did not have 2,800 pages of taxes and regulations. Please, there is more separating the two than there is in common.

And if Obamacare was word-for-word the same as Romneycare that would make it acceptable? It would make it any less repugnant or wrong?
The inalienable rights of every individual are still violated by each - the degree of the violation being irrelevant, the principles behind each being identical.  If it takes 70 pages or 2300 pages to violate your rights and lay you prostrate before them, does it make any material difference?

I really didn't mean to convey the thought that romneycare was good. obamacare is so much more than just healthcare. 2800 pages of 'the HHS' can determine at her discretion........fill in the blank.....It is an open ended massive regulation where they can pretty much do anything they please.

romenycare never did that. I'm saying this becasue I'm tired of hearing the leftists proclaim that romneycare is no different than obamacare. 

[IronDioPriest]

Or... this is a different set of challenges, and he understands and honors the difference between being the popularly elected governor of a deep-blue state and the constitutionally elected President of the United States, and will thus act accordingly.

And the difference is? This is like saying that if Lincoln was a governor in the South his acceptance of slavery in that situation would be okay, but then expecting he will do the right thing and fight the Civil War when he becomes President. Its moral relativism at its finest. The Morality of this doesn't depend on the situation. If Romney's support of individual rights is dependent upon what the majority of his constituency thinks- then he is morally degenerate and any hope of him doing the right thing relies on the slenderest of threads.  There is no moral difference between RomneyCare and Obamacare, any more than there was a moral difference between slavery in the Northern States ( who voluntarily abolished it) and Slavery in the Southern States ( who refused and tried to expand the practice.) If the difference is the  number of people willing to enslave the others around them- then  that number is growing with each new person on welfare, and Romney will bow to them, and not to any moral principle.  The man is  a snake, and we would do well to remember it.

I'm now officially too drunk to argue with you any further.

LOL.  Better cook up and get around some of that steak then.

Steak's already gone. Time fer pokkorn...

[benb61]

To play devils advocate for a second.  We live in a Democratic Republic, that means that what the majority want (as long as it is constitutional) they get.  If 51% of the populace wants all houses to be painted purple (going to an extreme) all people must paint their house purple, or be in violation of the law.  Violators will be punished by whatever means as described in the law. Morality is only considered in as far as the Constitution applies.

Comments?

[Libertas]

Mmm...meat...   

[Libertas]

To play devils advocate for a second.  We live in a Democratic Republic, that means that what the majority want (as long as it is constitutional) they get.  If 51% of the populace wants all houses to be painted purple (going to an extreme) all people must paint their house purple, or be in violation of the law.  Violators will be punished by whatever means as described in the law. Morality is only considered in as far as the Constitution applies.

Comments?

Unfair analogy, I live in Viking country.   

[benb61]

To play devils advocate for a second.  We live in a Democratic Republic, that means that what the majority want (as long as it is constitutional) they get.  If 51% of the populace wants all houses to be painted purple (going to an extreme) all people must paint their house purple, or be in violation of the law.  Violators will be punished by whatever means as described in the law. Morality is only considered in as far as the Constitution applies.

Comments?

Unfair analogy, I live in Viking country.   

I assumed that is where the 51% lived.   

[Weisshaupt]

To play devils advocate for a second.  We live in a Democratic Republic, that means that what the majority want (as long as it is constitutional) they get.  If 51% of the populace wants all houses to be painted purple (going to an extreme) all people must paint their house purple, or be in violation of the law.  Violators will be punished by whatever means as described in the law. Morality is only considered in as far as the Constitution applies.

Comments?

We live in a Constitutional  Republic based on Democratic Principles, NOT a Democracy.  Our Representatives are limited by our Constitution  in their power.  A Sheriff cannot, by the virtue of his office, decide to pillage, rape and enslave by the virtue of his office. One who did would be considered corrupt.  There are rules.  Likewise, and ever more so for our representatives who can only do that which is required to carry out the enumerated powers of the Constitution - and those powers do not require our houses to be painted Purple. Furthermore, the govt was enacted to become the protector of our inalienable rights - not their grantor, nor the agent of their violation. A supermajoirty had to agree to the Constitution, and its amendments. Not 51%

If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. James Madison,  remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)

Ultimately the method of Amendment makes us subject to a super-majority (at one time of landed white males, who by the way time after time  voted to give up their monopoly on power and share it with other groups) , the extra percentage and natural tendency of humans to disagree being the hurdle to tyranny via super-majority. Even with this check, the super-majority hurdle has not protected the rights of the individual. Prohibition being an example. Slavery being another. Just because a super-majority agrees  doesn't make their decision right or moral. Slavery was wrong for the entire century it was protected under our Constitution.  However, that is the process we agreed to, and if the power to run health care had been given by Amendment I would still think it wrong, but I would be a hell of a lot more willing to abide by it. The Dems have broken our agreement, have voted to expand the Fed's power past the limits we set, and have begun, like my hypothetical sheriff,  to rape and pillage. They do so without any pretense legitimacy ("Are you serious?!?") and without right, and every last one should be executed as unfit to share in a civilized society.


 

[Pandora]

Mmm...meat...   

Hell yeah!  And from the juice left on the plate, it looked like it was cooked med-rare, which is just how I like it.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Yah, IDP; I posted my comment before I saw your pics on another thread.

We're having the rest of the chicken and potatoes we roasted last night.  'S okay, chicken tonight is good too.

[IronDioPriest]

Mmm...meat...   

Hell yeah!  And from the juice left on the plate, it looked like it was cooked med-rare, which is just how I like it.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Yah, IDP; I posted my comment before I saw your pics on another thread.

We're having the rest of the chicken and potatoes we roasted last night.  'S okay, chicken tonight is good too.

That ain't juice, that's blood...

 

Another gravy/sauce controversy?

Chicken yummy too. Steak was my lunch. I'm on gewurtztraminer bottle number 2, and I'm satrting to git hungry again.

[Pandora]

Mmm...meat...   

Hell yeah!  And from the juice left on the plate, it looked like it was cooked med-rare, which is just how I like it.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Yah, IDP; I posted my comment before I saw your pics on another thread.

We're having the rest of the chicken and potatoes we roasted last night.  'S okay, chicken tonight is good too.

That ain't juice, that's blood...

 

Another gravy/sauce controversy?

Chicken yummy too. Steak was my lunch. I'm on gewurtztraminer bottle number 2, and I'm satrting to git hungry again.

Oh, I know it's blood, but when one refers to a nice, juicy steak, that's what I think of being left on the plate (when we had different plates, I could tip it off and right into my mouth -- don't tell anybody.  Yes, I'm a barbarian -- Gunsmith snickers when I do it), and no, it's not another controversy.  Don't be a pita.   

What's for dessert?