Moderator: Community Team
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:How will this difference manifest itself in a hypothetical Romney administration? What policies will Romney pursue different to Obama due to his love of America and its founding principles? Do those policies represent your beliefs best compared to all opposition?
GreecePwns wrote:Just to be clear: you're saying the rhetoric used by the two is secondary to their actual policies, right?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:How does Romneys love for Americas founding principles manifest itself in his policies? How does Obamas hate for Americas finding profiles manifest itself in his policies?
Without enough examples all were left with is rhetoric as the deciding factor.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney
"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama
Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.
Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy
Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism
Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.
thegreekdog wrote:I feel like I've asked this question before, but...
COULD YOU PLEASE NAME FIVE REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS DIFFERENT THAN OBAMA
Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney
"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama
Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.
Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy
Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism
Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.
okay, let me ask you something. How many policies are there? Is there any way that any of those policy discussion won't turn into politics and we do the usual circle jerk only to discover in the end I lean Conservative and you lean Liberal? As if that is not reason enough in itself for me to vote for Romney, and you for Obama (if you can/could)? What does a policy prove? You think if Gary Johnson got elected, that Congress would even let him enact 5% of the policies he promises?
There is a far bigger picture here than voting for a policy. That is to say, you can vote for a policy all your life, but if you don't vote for a WIN in ORDER TO IMPLEMENT that policy, then the policy is meaningless, and your votes have probably been wasted, unless you have also been working on the side through the primary process to get your guy/gal with your policies in a position to WIN, and of course, promote those policies.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney
"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama
Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.
Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy
Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism
Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.
okay, let me ask you something. How many policies are there? Is there any way that any of those policy discussion won't turn into politics and we do the usual circle jerk only to discover in the end I lean Conservative and you lean Liberal? As if that is not reason enough in itself for me to vote for Romney, and you for Obama (if you can/could)? What does a policy prove? You think if Gary Johnson got elected, that Congress would even let him enact 5% of the policies he promises?
There is a far bigger picture here than voting for a policy. That is to say, you can vote for a policy all your life, but if you don't vote for a WIN in ORDER TO IMPLEMENT that policy, then the policy is meaningless, and your votes have probably been wasted, unless you have also been working on the side through the primary process to get your guy/gal with your policies in a position to WIN, and of course, promote those policies.
PS rejects the adage: 'actions speak louder than words.'
GreecePwns wrote:There are a lot of issues that present opportunities for Obama and Romney to differ substantially. I'm not trying to convince you which set of policies to vote for, only to vote for the candidate which best represents your policies (as you said) or vote in a way which maximizes the chance that your policies will be enacted (as I have been saying).
I presented the consequences of voting for different candidates for a libertarian voter. If you vote for Romney, you're not going to have libertarian policies enacted (if you think so, please present the evidence) by a Romney administration; he's going to look at the win as an endorsement of A, B and C. He can't tell that you want E, F and G for obvious reason. So your win does nothing for enacting libertarian policies.
Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he doesn't get 5% but Romney loses, the GOP will look at the Johnson vote tally as voters who endorse E, F and G and a rejection of A, B and C. The GOP can either try and get libertarian votes by endorsing E, F and G or some middle point between that and their establishment, or they could just purge them from the party and forget all about them (the convention debacle having already done that at the Presidential candidate level), or they could try to actively suppress the libertarian movement.
Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he gets 5%, the Libertarian party will be rolling in the dough (relative to their current position). This means they can actively challenge for Congressional seats in the 2014 midterm elections and eventually the 2016 presidential election. This is the best chance to enact libertarian policies.
So how does voting for Romney help enact libertarian policies exactly?
- Forget foreign policy, since we know Romney will continue wars and other intervention, including war in Iran and unquestioning support for the racist practice of Zionism.
-Economic policies? Romney won't be advancing free markets, he'll just be picking a different set of winners than Obama.
-Social issues? I thought you wanted states' rights. Romney doesn't.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:And, until you prove otherwise by countering my points, Johnson is better for Libertarians than Romney is, even if he doesn't win.
tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.
How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?
Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Won't the Tea Party need to find the guy who is programming the teleprompter first? They weren't able to track him down in August.
Yeah, the GOP fucked my guy over, but we live to fight another day. It's still either Romney or Obama
I try not to get too emotionally involved with the politics of winning the nomination, as just about every politician will do whatever they can to win. It's not like I'm never going to vote again or dropping out of politics because of the Convention.
Phatscotty wrote:The Tea Party and Libertarian candidates still have a lot of work to do to get a majority in the Republican party in the House of Representatives, and hopefully the cocoon laid in 2011 will become a beautiful butterfly in 2013.
Phatscotty wrote:I'm not a quitter just because the candidate is not perfect in every way. I'm all in
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:saxitoxin wrote:tzor wrote:1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.tzor wrote:3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.PhatScotty wrote:Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is
Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.
Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co
This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.
and their views on Obama?
pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.
I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.
How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?
Based on his 14% tax hike on businesses as Governor of Massachusetts I'd say no on economic liberty.
Phatscotty wrote:bedub1 wrote:Romney is a better liar than Obama
Romney is a better douchebag than Obama
Romney is better at screwing over companies than Obama.
There are many ways Romney is better than Obama, just none of them good.
Who understands religious Liberty better?
Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:And neither has really proven to be betterin any meaningful way. My previous post listed the reasons you give for Romney being better, but none of them actually are true.
perhaps they were sarcastic and inside jokes between me and TGD???? did the i added to it not give it away enough?
Phatscotty wrote:Being serious: I believe Romney deeply loves America and understands and appreciates our principles, and I honestly believe Obama hates America's founding principles
Phatscotty wrote:That is why I think he is turning things upside down every chance Obama gets. Specializing in division and taking abrasive positions against the majority of Americans
Phatscotty wrote:GreecePwns wrote:How will this difference manifest itself in a hypothetical Romney administration? What policies will Romney pursue different to Obama due to his love of America and its founding principles? Do those policies represent your beliefs best compared to all opposition?
I think it's okay to leave the decision at "loves America and values our principles" versus "wants to fundamentally transform America and it's principles". Policy is secondary when the difference is crystal clear at the base.
Phatscotty wrote:]
Was this all Romney? Or was 85% of Massachussettes government at the time held by the Democratic party have more say in what legislation was sent to the Governors desk? I think they originally wanted a 19% increase....
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur