View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 30th, 2014, 11:33 pm



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Why should I vote for Romney? 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
How about a little levity from the election stuff?



Anyone have any more? Goodness knows we all could use a few laughs

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 19th, 2012, 3:11 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3713
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
I agree with legend. I am all for inoculations for any diseases that can done as early as possible.(m baby has already received a heb b one on day one of life) I see no reason why we shouldn't. It's cheap, and we'd be paying to the treatment for low income patients that have no insurance anyways. Cheaper on the tax payers AND eliminate the disease? How is that a bad thing?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


October 19th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
Sorry, I tried to be clear but was rushed.

I don't believe it's a conspiracy, but there have been reports that children (girls) have been innoculated without parents consent.

The HPV virus is genital warts, transferred from skin to skin contact, or intercourse. Studies are showing that it is a big contributor to cervical cancer in women, BUT, it's not as if it can not be prevented by other means. Condoms, female condoms, knowing who you're offering yourself too, and so on.

I was just trying to shed some light on this and probably should have done it in another forum.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


October 19th, 2012, 4:17 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3116
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Sorry, I tried to be clear but was rushed.

I don't believe it's a conspiracy, but there have been reports that children (girls) have been innoculated without parents consent.

The HPV virus is genital warts, transferred from skin to skin contact, or intercourse. Studies are showing that it is a big contributor to cervical cancer in women, BUT, it's not as if it can not be prevented by other means. Condoms, female condoms, knowing who you're offering yourself too, and so on.

I was just trying to shed some light on this and probably should have done it in another forum.

Yet again you've got your facts wrong. HPV is not genital warts. It is true that warts can result from it, the type of HPV that can cause warts is not the same type that can cause cancer. So inoculating against one is not the same as the other.

As has been said many many times on this forum, you really should do some more research before you post things because whoever or whatever you're getting your information from is factually incorrect.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


October 19th, 2012, 11:03 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
Are you sure? As a medic in the service we treated a lot of gen warts and we always wrote it up in med records as hpv per doctors orders....

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


October 20th, 2012, 12:53 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Are you sure? As a medic in the service we treated a lot of gen warts and we always wrote it up in med records as hpv per doctors orders....


Yes, they've since discovered that there are many variants of HPV. Most people have it, but never know. There's usually no signs at all on males, so they can pass it along without every showing a sign of having it and there's no tests for it. In females it has the chance to show nothing at all, or warts (but not always the full blown version, sometimes only 1, which then disappears) and the versions that can cause cancer.

Safe sex isn't 100% effective. Never has been, never will be. So a vaccine that can solve this for everyone is definitely the best option in this case. Last thing we need is a mutation that does something even worse, or increases the cancer risk.


October 20th, 2012, 1:59 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
AH!!! So I wasn't entirely wrong, just outdated! No worries, thanks for the update....

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


October 20th, 2012, 12:35 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
AH!!! So I wasn't entirely wrong, just outdated! No worries, thanks for the update....


You were a medic in the military... the government is always behind ;)


October 20th, 2012, 1:19 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 23rd, 2012, 2:09 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
I'm sorry, but if there are many reasons to NOT vote for Obama, that is all you need to vote for Romney. Truth be known, I'm not a big Romney fan. But the fact is, he's been in the business world and has been successful. And I think its about time we put someone in the White House that is a good business man, especially in these times where job growth and spending control is paramount above all things.

Obama made numerous promises to this nation four years ago. He hasn't followed through successfully with one of them. His administration is a whose who of liars, criminals and thieves, all looking to smile at you while picking your pocket and then telling you it wasn't them, even if you have them on video tape. I cannot in words express my disgust for the man, his wife and his cohorts. If they were all gathered in the White House and the place set on fire, I wouldn't piss on it to put it out......but I would piss on the ashes afterward.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


October 24th, 2012, 7:10 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
m2karateman wrote:
I'm sorry, but if there are many reasons to NOT vote for Obama, that is all you need to vote for Romney.
Not necessarily, as stated in my OP:
Quote:
am leaning towards 3rd party candidate Gary Johnson
I still haven't seen any solid, viable reasons to cast my vote for Romney instead of Johnson, there's still time though :wink:

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 25th, 2012, 9:42 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
HuffPo wrote:
Frightened Republicans Try to Close Down Election Competitors, Such as Gary Johnson
Posted: 10/24/2012 11:35 pm
Doug Bandow
Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute

The Republican Party claims to believe in freedom. But not really. Certainly not if that means being able to vote for someone who truly believes in liberty.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican who cut spending while advocating legalization of marijuana, originally ran for the GOP presidential nomination. But most of the debate organizers refused to let him join the largely undistinguished candidate herd which included another unknown former governor (Jon Huntsman) and a businessman with no political experience (Herman Cain).

Johnson switched parties and won the Libertarian Party nomination (joined by former Judge Jim Gray, the vice presidential nominee). Now Republicans fear the LP might take votes away from their candidate, Mitt Romney, who talks against spending and regulation. GOP operatives were able to keep Johnson off the Michigan ballot -- after his campaign filed the relevant paperwork three minutes late. In Pennsylvania state Republican officials unsuccessfully challenged Johnson's petition campaign (as elsewhere, the major party duopoly requires its competitors to collect signatures to go before the voters).

In the summer the Republican National Committee attempted to void Nevada's law which offers a ballot option of "none of these candidates." Republicans claimed they wanted to "bring clarity" to the election, but their real purpose was obvious: given the option of saying no to both major party representatives of Big Government, some citizens would be inclined to check "none." In 1998 Sen. Harry Reid, the current majority leader, won reelection by 428 votes while more than 8000 Nevadans chose "none." As the national challengers in 2012, the Republicans hoped these voters would migrate their way. Thankfully, the federal appellate court affirmed the law.

Obviously, the Republican Party is running scared. Reince Priebus, the national GOP chairman, dismissed Johnson as a "nonfactor." But then why keep him out of intra-party debates and try to keep him off of the general election ballot? Because leading Republicans know that any citizen who really believes in limited government and individual liberty does not want to vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

When a supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, the nation's leading political libertarian and the LP's standard-bearer in 1988, asked GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan why libertarians should vote Republican, the latter responded: "Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected?" The obvious answer is no.

However, in the same situation Vice President Joe Biden could have responded similarly: "Do you want Mitt Romney to be elected?" And the answer equally would be no.

Both the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates talk about liberty, freedom, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, choice and the Constitution. But neither candidate believes in those principles. Elect either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and government will be bigger, spending will be higher, regulation will be more intrusive, the military will be fighting more wars, more service personnel will be dying, more money will be wasted abroad, civil liberties of more people will be violated, and more privacy of more citizens will be invaded. Overall, the free society will continue to retreat.

Advocates of the RepubliCrats are reduced to arguing that their guy is the lesser of two evils. Evil yes, just not as truly awful as the other guy.

Think of all the extra money Barack Obama would waste, say the Republicans. That argument sounded better before President George W. Bush and the GOP Congress went wild, running up the federal tab on virtually every program, even matching Lyndon Johnson's spending increases for domestic discretionary spending. The budget was far safer during the 1990s, when a Democratic executive faced a Republican legislature.

Think of all the extra wars Mitt Romney would start, say the Democrats. That argument would be more convincing before President Barack Obama doubled down in Afghanistan, intervened in Libya, sent troops to Uganda, and threatened Iran with war. At least George W. Bush didn't use slideshows to decide which American citizen to execute overseas. The country was far safer under Ronald Reagan, who only briefly employed military force three times during this presidency, and withdrew from Lebanon without attempting to "fix" that broken land.

The two leading candidates want to toss people in jail for smoking marijuana, even though the last three presidents and tens of millions of Americans have used the drug. Both contenders believe that presidents enjoy unaccountable autocratic powers if exercised in the name of "national security." Both believe in the vast entitlement state with mass income transfers and redistribution.

Irrespective of the rhetoric, there isn't much practical difference between the major parties. There might be a bit more than the "dime's worth of difference" suggested by George Wallace. But probably not. After all, in his latest flips of many flops Romney continues to moderate his positions in a desperate ploy for votes: after the first presidential debate New York Times columnist David Brooks celebrated the return of "Moderate Mitt." There should be real difference to vote for evil, even if slightly less than the other evil.

Today those who believe in individual liberty and limited government are essentially stuck choosing between a big-spending militaristic statist and a big-spending militaristic statist. Both are heading the same direction, even if they might reach various points more or less quickly. The differences are in degree, not kind. An alternative is desperately needed.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) provided one in Congress and the Republican Party presidential primaries, but he is retiring. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kty.) is more mainstream than his father, but still may come to offer "a choice, not an echo," as supporters of Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) put it nearly a half century ago.

The Tea Party helps. The movement is complicated and internally inconsistent, but David Kirby and Emily Ekins of FreedomWorks and the Reason Foundation, respectively, reported in a recent Cato Institute study that "Roughly half the tea party is socially conservative, half libertarian -- or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal." As a result of the movement's focus on economic issues, they added, "Even social conservatives and evangelicals within the tea party act like libertarians."

Finally, there are alternative political parties. The Constitution, Reform and Green Parties all have advanced at least some issues in the cause of individual liberty and limited government. Most consistent, despite its often indifferent vote totals, is the Libertarian Party. In choosing Johnson and Gray the LP nominated two serious candidates who truly offer a choice rather than an echo.

Which triggered even more frenzied Republican attacks on the LP. This is the most important election in a generation (or is that millennium?), GOP apparatchiks proclaim, so any vote for anyone else is wasted. Of course, they said the same thing four years ago. And eight years ago. Alas, in those elections most Americans end up "wasting their votes" on the two RepubliCrat candidates dedicated to the failed status quo.

Despite claims of imminent Armageddon, the U.S. will survive whether Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney) is elected. Government will be bigger, people will be less free, the nation will be less prosperous, Americans will remain at war around the world. But life will go on. The only way to encourage real change is look beyond today's political duopoly. The only way to elect someone who is not a big-spending militaristic statist is to allow someone who is not a big-spending militaristic statist on the ballot. And to vote for that someone.

Who is the right candidate for America? The American people soon will decide. But they should enjoy a full range of choices before deciding. Instead of manipulating the election rules in an attempt to eliminate competition, the Republican Party should welcome the Libertarian Party and other challengers in the political arena. The former should try to win by convincing the American people that the GOP really is the better option, not by preventing them from voting for someone else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-band ... 13482.html

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


October 25th, 2012, 10:28 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
TheRealWags wrote:
HuffPo wrote:
Frightened Republicans Try to Close Down Election Competitors, Such as Gary Johnson
Posted: 10/24/2012 11:35 pm
Doug Bandow
Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute

The Republican Party claims to believe in freedom. But not really. Certainly not if that means being able to vote for someone who truly believes in liberty.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican who cut spending while advocating legalization of marijuana, originally ran for the GOP presidential nomination. But most of the debate organizers refused to let him join the largely undistinguished candidate herd which included another unknown former governor (Jon Huntsman) and a businessman with no political experience (Herman Cain).

Johnson switched parties and won the Libertarian Party nomination (joined by former Judge Jim Gray, the vice presidential nominee). Now Republicans fear the LP might take votes away from their candidate, Mitt Romney, who talks against spending and regulation. GOP operatives were able to keep Johnson off the Michigan ballot -- after his campaign filed the relevant paperwork three minutes late. In Pennsylvania state Republican officials unsuccessfully challenged Johnson's petition campaign (as elsewhere, the major party duopoly requires its competitors to collect signatures to go before the voters).

In the summer the Republican National Committee attempted to void Nevada's law which offers a ballot option of "none of these candidates." Republicans claimed they wanted to "bring clarity" to the election, but their real purpose was obvious: given the option of saying no to both major party representatives of Big Government, some citizens would be inclined to check "none." In 1998 Sen. Harry Reid, the current majority leader, won reelection by 428 votes while more than 8000 Nevadans chose "none." As the national challengers in 2012, the Republicans hoped these voters would migrate their way. Thankfully, the federal appellate court affirmed the law.

Obviously, the Republican Party is running scared. Reince Priebus, the national GOP chairman, dismissed Johnson as a "nonfactor." But then why keep him out of intra-party debates and try to keep him off of the general election ballot? Because leading Republicans know that any citizen who really believes in limited government and individual liberty does not want to vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

When a supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, the nation's leading political libertarian and the LP's standard-bearer in 1988, asked GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan why libertarians should vote Republican, the latter responded: "Do you want Barack Obama to be re-elected?" The obvious answer is no.

However, in the same situation Vice President Joe Biden could have responded similarly: "Do you want Mitt Romney to be elected?" And the answer equally would be no.

Both the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates talk about liberty, freedom, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, choice and the Constitution. But neither candidate believes in those principles. Elect either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and government will be bigger, spending will be higher, regulation will be more intrusive, the military will be fighting more wars, more service personnel will be dying, more money will be wasted abroad, civil liberties of more people will be violated, and more privacy of more citizens will be invaded. Overall, the free society will continue to retreat.

Advocates of the RepubliCrats are reduced to arguing that their guy is the lesser of two evils. Evil yes, just not as truly awful as the other guy.

Think of all the extra money Barack Obama would waste, say the Republicans. That argument sounded better before President George W. Bush and the GOP Congress went wild, running up the federal tab on virtually every program, even matching Lyndon Johnson's spending increases for domestic discretionary spending. The budget was far safer during the 1990s, when a Democratic executive faced a Republican legislature.

Think of all the extra wars Mitt Romney would start, say the Democrats. That argument would be more convincing before President Barack Obama doubled down in Afghanistan, intervened in Libya, sent troops to Uganda, and threatened Iran with war. At least George W. Bush didn't use slideshows to decide which American citizen to execute overseas. The country was far safer under Ronald Reagan, who only briefly employed military force three times during this presidency, and withdrew from Lebanon without attempting to "fix" that broken land.

The two leading candidates want to toss people in jail for smoking marijuana, even though the last three presidents and tens of millions of Americans have used the drug. Both contenders believe that presidents enjoy unaccountable autocratic powers if exercised in the name of "national security." Both believe in the vast entitlement state with mass income transfers and redistribution.

Irrespective of the rhetoric, there isn't much practical difference between the major parties. There might be a bit more than the "dime's worth of difference" suggested by George Wallace. But probably not. After all, in his latest flips of many flops Romney continues to moderate his positions in a desperate ploy for votes: after the first presidential debate New York Times columnist David Brooks celebrated the return of "Moderate Mitt." There should be real difference to vote for evil, even if slightly less than the other evil.

Today those who believe in individual liberty and limited government are essentially stuck choosing between a big-spending militaristic statist and a big-spending militaristic statist. Both are heading the same direction, even if they might reach various points more or less quickly. The differences are in degree, not kind. An alternative is desperately needed.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) provided one in Congress and the Republican Party presidential primaries, but he is retiring. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kty.) is more mainstream than his father, but still may come to offer "a choice, not an echo," as supporters of Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) put it nearly a half century ago.

The Tea Party helps. The movement is complicated and internally inconsistent, but David Kirby and Emily Ekins of FreedomWorks and the Reason Foundation, respectively, reported in a recent Cato Institute study that "Roughly half the tea party is socially conservative, half libertarian -- or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal." As a result of the movement's focus on economic issues, they added, "Even social conservatives and evangelicals within the tea party act like libertarians."

Finally, there are alternative political parties. The Constitution, Reform and Green Parties all have advanced at least some issues in the cause of individual liberty and limited government. Most consistent, despite its often indifferent vote totals, is the Libertarian Party. In choosing Johnson and Gray the LP nominated two serious candidates who truly offer a choice rather than an echo.

Which triggered even more frenzied Republican attacks on the LP. This is the most important election in a generation (or is that millennium?), GOP apparatchiks proclaim, so any vote for anyone else is wasted. Of course, they said the same thing four years ago. And eight years ago. Alas, in those elections most Americans end up "wasting their votes" on the two RepubliCrat candidates dedicated to the failed status quo.

Despite claims of imminent Armageddon, the U.S. will survive whether Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney) is elected. Government will be bigger, people will be less free, the nation will be less prosperous, Americans will remain at war around the world. But life will go on. The only way to encourage real change is look beyond today's political duopoly. The only way to elect someone who is not a big-spending militaristic statist is to allow someone who is not a big-spending militaristic statist on the ballot. And to vote for that someone.

Who is the right candidate for America? The American people soon will decide. But they should enjoy a full range of choices before deciding. Instead of manipulating the election rules in an attempt to eliminate competition, the Republican Party should welcome the Libertarian Party and other challengers in the political arena. The former should try to win by convincing the American people that the GOP really is the better option, not by preventing them from voting for someone else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-band ... 13482.html


So then are the dems frightened because they're keeping Jill Stein from attending the democratic debates and tickets? Paul, Huntsman, etc.. were in on the debates because they didn't try to run on a third ticket. They went through the same process as everyone else. Johnson chose to go with the third party ticket right from the beginning. Had he ran as a Republican, he could have participated in the primary debates.

The media relies on the advertising dollars. Both parties are hurt by independent tickets. Democrats are hurt by green party tickets. But the lawsuit had mentioned in this article wasn't about stopping a third party, it was about eliminating the "none" option. The none option is truly a wasted vote. A write-in option at least casts the vote towards someone/something. When the none option has more than the margin of victory, it's just a bad option.

I have no problem with allowing third-party candidates their air time, but who's debate do you put them under? They aren't running Republican or Democrat, regardless of what they were before, so do we need a third party debate? Is that even viable? Or do they skip primaries and just wait until the Presidential debates, but by then it's already too late.

But this article is all a false premise. Eliminating the none option isn't even closely related to third-party candidates. It's a problem with both parties but this is just trying to paint one side as worse. The republicans at least acknowledge Johnson. The Dems don't acknowledge Stein at all.


October 25th, 2012, 11:33 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Why should I vote for Romney?
Wags, I recently had a long conversation with somone that sounds just like you.They expressed similar reservations and didn't know what to do. Fortunately though, in the end, I was able to convince them to vote for Romney (whom, as you know, I am not a huge fan of).

It's fairly simple really. Do you want bigger government under Obama or lesser government under Romney? Do you want bigger deficits under Obama or smaller deficits under Romney? Do you want less jobs under Obama or more jobs under Romney? Do you want a return to American principles which made us great with Romney or a continuation of statist policies under Obama which have led to our current situation?

To quote our last GREAT President, Ronald Reagan, Government isn't the solution to our problems, Government IS the problem. It's about time that the people re-awake to that truth

With that said, Romney will win this election. The corrupt lamestream media polls are attempting to prop Obama up, but that isn't the case in the field. Just look at the internals to find the truth. Obama won Independents by 8 points in 2008, but is losing them by 10-15 points now, More importantly, Republican/conservative enthusiasm is through the roof, while Democratic/liberal enthusiam is down. Do the math. There will be a new President this year.

_________________
Image


October 29th, 2012, 6:09 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.