Mitt's Speech...and a rebuttal

SentToStud · #1 12-08-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

better we all stand back and let them do what they do best.

(crunch) (crack!) chew. chew. chew.

it's a tribal thing. who knew republicans were so similar to arabs?

I don't get it. Are you saying most Arab-Americans are Republicans?

#2 12-08-2007, 11:13 AM

I will play political astrologer.
If Mitt happens to get the GOP
nomination, welcome a Democrat
back as president.

It is apparent ideas on solving major problems
have very little
to do with a candidate's popularity.
Name recognition through good speaking,
physical attributes, party association, and finally
major personal prefrences out
of the mainstream, seem to play
THE central role in who we back.

Mitt is a Mormon. He is cooked with the public...
with his own party.

Take McCain. He has to be considered a major
player but is not. He is not a good speaker.
He screwed around a whole lot as a pilot.
People will tell you he backs the war too much.
That, imo, is an excuse because he comes off so poorly
on TV. Huckabee comes across very well on TV.
If Huckabee had McCain's lack of persona, he would never
had a dime in contributions.

It is possible that a very good president to
be, could be a poor TV personality, ugly, have
a wife or husband that worships Thor, and...
we will never see this person as a president.

Image is everything. Substance... hell, we cant
even get to substance because WE dont want
substance.WE cant handle substance. Because if a candidate
says one thing we disagree with, cross em off.

So...
they dance around the issues, hoping not to hack
off anyone. WE WON'T let them tell us what they really
think. And we vote for those that dance around
the issues most deftly and then are able to convincingly
frame other candidates with specifics (that are usually
embellished).
WE cant handle specifics.

#3 12-08-2007, 11:23 AM

peegarden's rant cont...

Health care is a major issue.
The UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA already has health care, it just does not work
for what is becoming a larger portion of the population.
So any plan that is presented, is easily torn down as
the Worst possible scenario: Socialized Medicine...
God help us all...

"Why Rudi, your idea about so and so, is really Socialized
Medicine." We already have socialized medicine.
The Govt already plays a huge role
in health care.
But the Government does not own the vast majority of
hospitals, and the Doctors are not in the employ of the
Government. THIS IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

"Why Mike, that last little section in your health care plan,
why MIke that is clearly Socialized Medicine."
So Mike will not put out a clear plan. No one will.
And folks who say we dont need a plan,
the government needs to stay out...
well open your eyes, the government already has a
plan firmly in place that is costing money.

By definition in this country (as presented
by politicians this country) we already
have socialized medicine because the
govt. IS deeply involved with health care AT PRESENT.

WE cant handle specifics. So politicians wont give em to us.

GBBob · #4 12-08-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

I will play political astrologer.
If Mitt happens to get the GOP
nomination, welcome a Democrat
back as president.

It is apparent ideas on solving major problems
have very little
to do with a candidate's popularity.
Name recognition through good speaking,
physical attributes, party association, and finally
major personal prefrences out
of the mainstream, seem to play
THE central role in who we back.

Mitt is a Mormon. He is cooked with the public...
with his own party.

Take McCain. He has to be considered a major
player but is not. He is not a good speaker.
He screwed around a whole lot as a pilot.
People will tell you he backs the war too much.
That, imo, is an excuse because he comes off so poorly
on TV. Huckabee comes across very well on TV.
If Huckabee had McCain's lack of persona, he would never
had a dime in contributions.

It is possible that a very good president to
be, could be a poor TV personality, ugly, have
a wife or husband that worships Thor, and...
we will never see this person as a president.

Image is everything. Substance... hell, we cant
even get to substance because WE dont want
substance.WE cant handle substance. Because if a candidate
says one thing we disagree with, cross em off.

So...
they dance around the issues, hoping not to hack
off anyone. WE WON'T let them tell us what they really
think. And we vote for those that dance around
the issues most deftly and then are able to convincingly
frame other candidates with specifics (that are usually
embellished).
WE cant handle specifics.

I don't think he is cooked with the public..I think he is cooked with the religous right wing of the Repub party. This is a big generalization/stretch, but if Romney was a Democrat and had a true Dem platform, I think he would be nominated, maybe even elected. But the extreme Christian right can't handle a Mormon, or anyone else for that matter getting the nomination and that's why he probably won't get nominated. Their numbers are very large and they vote.

#5 12-08-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBBob

I don't think he is cooked with the public..I think he is cooked with the religous right wing of the Repub party. This is a big generalization/stretch, but if Romney was a Democrat and had a true Dem platform, I think he would be nominated, maybe even elected. But the extreme Christian right can't handle a Mormon, or anyone else for that matter getting the nomination and that's why he probably won't get nominated. Their numbers are very large and they vote.

I went to church. (Was not struck by an electrical storm)
A Catholic church, mainly because I
am Catholic (supposed to be).

The older Catholics that want a Rep.
(pro-life) Dont want Mitt. My little world,
my little poll. JFK... hmmm. You think
they would realize the contradiction.

These older folks. They WILL vote.
In large numbers.

Downthestretch55 · #6 12-08-2007, 11:57 AM

Pgardn my friend,
At issue is not "health care".
At issue is freedom of, or freedom from, religion.
In my humble view, Romney cooked himself in his pathetic speech. Huckabee, though quite appealing to the evangelicals, is also as scarey. His agenda, as a Southern Baptist preacher, will place the presidency in the hands of yet another "ordained" leader, as we have presently.
Damn the Constitution. Welcome to the American Taliban!
DTS

GBBob · #7 12-08-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn my friend,
At issue is not "health care".
At issue is freedom of, or freedom from, religion.
In my humble view, Romney cooked himself in his pathetic speech. Huckabee, though quite appealing to the evangelicals, is also as scarey. His agenda, as a Southern Baptist preacher, will place the presidency in the hands of yet another "ordained" leader, as we have presently.
Damn the Constitution. Welcome to the American Taliban!
DTS

DTS..Not to be obvious, but it's a numbers game. You and I agree...well, he was cooked in our minds before the speech, but he also endeared himself to probably just as many as he may have scared. Hence the "ovation" blips in your transcript

#8 12-08-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn my friend,
At issue is not "health care".
At issue is freedom of, or freedom from, religion.
In my humble view, Romney cooked himself in his pathetic speech. Huckabee, though quite appealing to the evangelicals, is also as scarey. His agenda, as a Southern Baptist preacher, will place the presidency in the hands of yet another "ordained" leader, as we have presently.
Damn the Constitution. Welcome to the American Taliban!
DTS

My rant was on the system that gives us our choices.
The system to fit what WE want to hear.

Health Care was merely and example.

Downthestretch55 · #9 12-08-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

My rant was on the system that gives us our choices.
The system to fit what WE want to hear.

Health Care was merely and example.

PG and GbBob,
Both correct. All of 'em pander to the numbers, the sheep that they (wolves) wish to comfort. Sounds like "the blind leading the blind" to me.
It's just a matter of time until the consequeces of their actions demand reaction. Believe me, it will be. Sooner better than later.
If not, this once great nation is doomed to follow Rome's example.

ArlJim78 · #10 12-08-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn my friend,
At issue is not "health care".
At issue is freedom of, or freedom from, religion.
In my humble view, Romney cooked himself in his pathetic speech. Huckabee, though quite appealing to the evangelicals, is also as scarey. His agenda, as a Southern Baptist preacher, will place the presidency in the hands of yet another "ordained" leader, as we have presently.
Damn the Constitution. Welcome to the American Taliban!DTS

I see you're back with your hysterical nonsense once again. Please take us step by step how it so happens that if a person like Romney or Huckabee were to become president that its the same as an American Taliban?
how does either of these guys jeopardize freedom from religion?
please be specific and reference policies they support or actions they took as govenors that lead you to this conclusion.

skippy3481 · #11 12-08-2007, 03:27 PM

I want to know how romney is trying to push state sponsored religion. I must be missing something major in his speech.

Downthestretch55 · #12 12-08-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I see you're back with your hysterical nonsense once again. Please take us step by step how it so happens that if a person like Romney or Huckabee were to become president that its the same as an American Taliban?
how does either of these guys jeopardize freedom from religion?
please be specific and reference policies they support or actions they took as govenors that lead you to this conclusion.

ArlJim,
Don't label my views as "hyterical nonsense". I've previously seen what those that have "religious agendas" have done to people in the name of their "god".
Can you remember anything about those that flew planes into the Twin Towers? Or Robertson? or Hagee? Or even our beloved president's "crusade comment"?
You are indeed deluded if you don't think that one's religious beliefs don't influence their own actions.
Romney has already made his statements. Go back and read the link.
Huckabee has done so as well. Google it.
DTS

GBBob · #13 12-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I see you're back with your hysterical nonsense once again. Please take us step by step how it so happens that if a person like Romney or Huckabee were to become president that its the same as an American Taliban?
how does either of these guys jeopardize freedom from religion?
please be specific and reference policies they support or actions they took as govenors that lead you to this conclusion.

These are recent quotes from Huckabee. I'm not sure how they can be interpreted as anything other than jeoprdizing freedom from religion.

" Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't...So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict"

he will oppose gay marriage until " Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules."

"If you're with Jesus Christ, we know how it turns out in the final moment. I've read the last chapter in the book, and we do end up winning."

I respect and even envy those with strong faith, no matter who the deity. But this guy, IMO, will clearly let his beliefs determine policy

Rileyoriley · #14 12-08-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I see you're back with your hysterical nonsense once again. Please take us step by step how it so happens that if a person like Romney or Huckabee were to become president that its the same as an American Taliban?
how does either of these guys jeopardize freedom from religion?
please be specific and reference policies they support or actions they took as govenors that lead you to this conclusion.

Romney never let his religion come into play when he was governor. I didn't even know he was a morman until the media started playing it up when he announced his bid for president.

IrishofNDMan · #15 12-08-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

I went to church. (Was not struck by an electrical storm)
A Catholic church, mainly because I
am Catholic (supposed to be).

The older Catholics that want a Rep.
(pro-life) Dont want Mitt. My little world,
my little poll. JFK... hmmm. You think
they would realize the contradiction.

These older folks. They WILL vote.
In large numbers.

I am a practicing Catholic who attends church every Sunday, and I am not really backing Mitt. I like him because he is from Michigan like me, but he is not my choice. Just thought I would clear that up.

Downthestretch55 · #16 12-08-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishofNDMan

I am a practicing Catholic who attends church every Sunday, and I am not really backing Mitt. I like him because he is from Michigan like me, but he is not my choice. Just thought I would clear that up.

Irish,
I like ya, guy.
But I'm a little confused.
Do you like Mitt because of his proximity (Michigan) like yourself, or do his statements have any bearing?
Thanks for clearing this up further.

IrishofNDMan · #17 12-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Irish,
I like ya, guy.
But I'm a little confused.
Do you like Mitt because of his proximity (Michigan) like yourself, or do his statements have any bearing?
Thanks for clearing this up further.

to tell you the truth, I don't really know much about Mitt besides the fact he is from Michigan. His mormone religion is obviously a lot different than my Catholic religion. I just stated GO MITT because he is from Michigan, but he is not my choice for president.

Danzig · #18 12-08-2007, 07:03 PM

as for huckabee, he may have bigger issues to deal with:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316228,00.html