Romney

[il Padrino Ute]

As so many CUFers have told me, it's not about what you say, but how you say it. Of course you can be honest. However, I think we all would hope that your "honest opinion" includes something a bit more substantive than "I hate that guy because he sucks!"

Please. I've stated that I hate Obama because his policies have made the economy worse and believe that those policies have limited freedom. If you've actually read my posts, you would know that.

[woot]

Please. I've stated that I hate Obama because his policies have made the economy worse and believe that those policies have limited freedom. If you've actually read my posts, you would know that.

Yeah, I guess that's what I meant by "he sucks". You've only expanded that to define what "sucks" means, without providing any reasoning. Your inclusion of an "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" certainly didn't help your cause.

[Moliere]

Why should I not state my honest opinion?

I don't think you understood my point

[Moliere]

I'll admit that I feel strongly enough in my opinions that I state them as fact, but I won't nor should apologize for it. I am who I am and I never leave a doubt where I stand. I think the world would be better if we would all say exactly what we mean without worrying about how others may receive it.

Wait, maybe you understood it but are too blunt to understand the idiocracy of your position.

[I.J. Reilly]

Go and delete your 'swollen p***y' post and then maybe you can have a little credibility with these little lectures.

I had no idea that you considered the word pussy to be of such distaste as to require asterisks. Perhaps you even consider it a swear word. Huh. Is this common?

I will now be more cognizant of your sensitivities when posting.

As to the post itself, you seem to have misread in my post what was swollen.

[falafel]

I had no idea that you considered the word pussy to be of such distaste as to require asterisks. Perhaps you even consider it a swear word. Huh. Is this common?

I will now be more cognizant of your sensitivities when posting.

As to the post itself, you seem to have misread in my post what was swollen.

YOhio's just trying to clean up the board for the substantial influx of new female posters we are expecting any minute now.

[I.J. Reilly]

So, I shouldn't state my honest opinion? Sorry, I don't play that way. If someone has a problem what I say, it's their problem, not mine.

I'm learning all sorts of new things today. I had no idea you were a proponent of verbal diarrhea as a valid form of public discourse upon which a cohesive society is built. I assume you also support incitement, obscenity, fighting words, and libel as acceptable forms of speech. Noted.

[LA Ute]

Getting back to Romney....

Does anyone think these guys are right:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

They say their data suggest that Romey's Mormonism will be less of a problem for him in the general election than in the primaries. I'm not so sure.

[Goatnapper'96]

Getting back to Romney....

Does anyone think these guys are right:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

They say their data suggest that Romey's Mormonism will be less of a problem for him in the general election than in the primaries. I'm not so sure.

I agree with them. The folks with problems are hard core secularists and evangelists. The evangilists will vote for him in the general over President Obama even if he is not their favorite and there is no way he is going to win over the hard core left leaning secularists. While they have realized that their noctural emission of an articulate, well educated African American becoming President has turned into a night of "Margaret Thatcher on a cold nite....Margaret Thatcher on a cold nite!" similar to the jilted religious righties, they will get in line with the other liberals.

I don't think mormonism is going to be a big deal in the general election.

[NorthwestUteFan]

To deny that Obama could have had much affect on the current state of things is to not see reality. You are essentially saying that the following po0licies have had little to no effect.

1. Trillion Dollar stimulus
2. 800 billion TRAP (passed by Congress prior to election, but implemented by Obama and he could hae chosen not to do it at all)
3. continuing war in Iraq
4. escalating was in Afghanistan
5. Dood Frank
6. Obamacare

It just doesn't make any sense to conclude that Obama has had little effect. One could argue over whether it was positive or negative. One can argue whether Reagan could have done better (I'm not arguing that he certainly would have).

But anyway, the public perception is always that the President exercises significant influence on the economy, even if you and I agree. So my point was merely about public perception. The public perceives that Obama is a failed president (or at least whites largely think that) and the economy has been particularly hard on blacks (as it usually is). But those facts hardly lead to the conclusion that a failed black president has disastrous consequences for the black race or the perception of blacks in large. After all, republicans are seriously considering selecting a black candidate.

In an attempt to get this derailed train back on its tracks, I posit the following: John McCain would have strongly supported and likely would have signed onto each item on this list.

While I am at it, Mitt Romney would likely have supported them as well.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't think mormonism is going to be a big deal in the general election.

Well said. Everybody who is remotely connected with the right in any way will fall in line on the ABO* bandwagon if Mitt wins the primary. I expect some vile rhetoric through the primary, however, so buckle up and hang on for the ride.

I would LOVE to see a Romney/Cain ticket just to watch the evangelicals squirm.


*ABO = "Anybody But Obama"

[Goatnapper'96]

In an attempt to get this derailed train back on its tracks, I posit the following: John McCain would have strongly supported and likely would have signed onto each item on this list.

While I am at it, Mitt Romney would likely have supported them as well.

I don't think either would have signed onto Obamacare or the Dodd-Frank. I think both would have signed onto the concept of health care reform but I don't think either would have used the smoke screen of health care reform to usher in a middle class entitlement that will be more expensive, without real health care reform, than any other existing entitlement. I see very little about Dodd-Frank Romney or McCain would have supported.

I could see McCain agreeing with Obama that the Supreme Court got the campaign finance ruling incorrect!

Further, while both might have supported a stimulus I doubt it would have bent nearly as far towards the favor of public employee unions as it did. I could be wrong on that one but something tells me that was a wee bit of a political payoff of a key constituency. I think both Romney and McCain would have been a little stronger in the mentality that states, counties and municipalities and all the affiliated governmental entities were going to have to figure out how to exist with the decreased revenues from plunging property values. I actually think either Romney or McCain would have developed a more authentically Keynesist stimulus than the one we saw.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You honestly tell me that John McCain wouldn't have signed Dodd-Frank, with a straight face? Mr McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liebermann? He would have been all over that one like a McCain on a hare-brained regulation scheme. I think he would have loved Dodd-Frank with a few tweaks.

You got me on the Obamacare thing though, McCain's plan was quite a bit different (freedom to choose doctor, anybody can buy insurance from any insurance company from any state and your local hospital has to accept it, give the tax deduction to the employee rather than to the employer, etc). As I see it, Obamacare is a GIFT of epic proportions to the pharmaceutical companies and a few of the largest insurance companies and hospital chains.

You are probably correct that either McCain or Romney would have steered the stimulus dollars elsewhere. But neither would have voted against the stimulus itself. Same with the TARP. IIRC both were very strongly in favor of that bill, which basically gave an ungodly sum of money to the Bush' Treasury Secretary to distribute as he saw necessary, and with almost zero oversight. The day he broke off the campaign to rush back to DC in an attempt to have his own say in support of the TARP was the day I realized he was going to lose the election. It was obvious there were the thinnest of differences between him and Obama.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm learning all sorts of new things today. I had no idea you were a proponent of verbal diarrhea as a valid form of public discourse upon which a cohesive society is built. I assume you also support incitement, obscenity, fighting words, and libel as acceptable forms of speech. Noted.

If what I say incites another to any kind of emotional response, it is because they choose to be incited; obscenity can get a point across emphatically; fighting words are only fighting words if one chooses them to be fighting words; libel isn't libel if it's true and I would think that an opinion isn't libel.

[il Padrino Ute]

Wait, maybe you understood it but are too blunt to understand the idiocracy of your position.

Perhaps you can explain this alleged idiocracy of my position. But remember that this is only your opinion, so it can't be considered a fact that my position is one of idiocracy.