Mitt Romney says he would repeal Obamacare as 1st priority
 

Romney fired his strongest salvo yet in his bid for President. I like where this is going and am looking forward to the debate, the attacks and the recriminations.

Now we're talking issues and not just sloganeering. I'm not in his corner yet, but I am definitely listening................ and smiling.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...lth-care_n.htm

Wasn't he the Governor
 

of Massachusetts when their legislature passed a bill that Romney signed creating a statewide healthcare program very similar to Obamacare? Just another issue for Mitt to do one of his famous flip-flops on. I mean he's changed his mind on practically every major issue since he began running for president in 2008, so why should this be any different? He's a man of real convictions.

Ah yes, and if you say your 1st priority is to defeat "Obamacare" you are an instant Republican in good standing, and they all pat you on the back, tell you how wonderful you are and give you truckloads of money.

Why else would you declare such a 1st priority?

I know; it's just unbelievable that a politician might change his mind and or misrepresent himself. I can't think why anyone in his or her right mind would vote for such a flip flopping candidate.

But he was elected President anyway!!!

Ladies and gentlemen; The top ten flip flogs of the President of the United States as compiled by the UK Telegraph (because the NY Times has it's fingers in its' ears and is going nah nah nah nah nah)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...en-flip-flops/

Richie! YOU? Quoting a *British* newspaper? :)

There are plenty of fair to slightly-biased arguments in that article.

The only real misleading one is #10 (about NASA and the Constellation program). The assumption you get from that is that Constellation was funded and a good program. The administration is going full-bore on exploiting the genius of some of our commercial space partners since guys like Elon Musk seem to be able to do what NASA used to do for a tenth the price and in FAR less time.

It is no surprise that Richie quoted a British newspaper as a source.

It is no secret that Richie was invited to the Royal Wedding in London. By the way, Richie, William and Kate would like the receipt for the toaster you got them at Wal-Mart so they can exchange it for something else.

The British are ahead of the curve in the matter of evaluating American Democrats in the print media. It been that way for a while now. Not much to disprove in the article and that's all that matters, isn't it?

A blog from a Murdoch newspaper is a "source?" Give me a break!

content, content, content.

I actually have always thought Romney would be a good choice as President. I have noticed a couple of postings, though, that say with Romney being a Mormon it may not sit right for the "religious right". Do you think that religion is still a factor in politics? I had known that Kennedy's detractors said stupid things like the Pope is going to rule America. We have seen the color barrier broken for President. Why would Mormonism be held against a capable person for the Presidency?

Back in early April the Orlando Sentinel had a poll asking if you would vote to re-elect Obama and then asked two questions as to why or why not. Not surprisingly the No votes garnered 59% of the poll. What did surprise me was that 2/3rds of those saying No chose as a reason the Healthcare law over economy.

The problem is that most don't really understand the benefits of the health care law. Most just listen to the talking heads criticize and fail to do any fact finding of their own. If people really understood that they benefit from the law they would come around to supporting it.

I really do not think a President can repeal a law with a stroke of his pen. He could have it introduced in the House of Representatives (through one of his party) and it could advance to the Senate for a vote. If the required percentage (3/4, I believe) voted in favor of the repeal, it would be sent to the President for his signature.

This would take a whole lot of debate in both the House and Senate. The American public would see once again how Republicans are against healthcare for the elderly, the poor, the young, and the middle class. The losers would be Republicans.

So, in the unlikely event an intelligent Republican gets to be President, I do not think we have to worry about Affordable Healthcare being repealed.

All the political puffery is just that - it is POLITICAL PUFFERY.

Tbugs, Obamacare can, like any other program, be killed by not funding it. There is a tendency to forget that one congress cannot impose its will on subsequent congresses. Despite all the talk, the 'border fence' is not being built because congress ceased funding it in '09.

It would be so much easier to understand if you would read the article, Bugs. Romney says he is going to issue executive orders allowing each state to individually "opt out"; in other words "to be granted waivers". The same waivers that your exalted ruler granted to all his union friends. That would take care of the problem immediately. He then would work with Congress and the Senate to repeal this immensely unpopular legislation.

America doesn't want this no matter how you try so hard to spin it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

Suppose you will soon be calling him a mullah, if you haven't already. The hate is so obvious.

This is really amazing this thread about the health care bill. No I think it should be repealed also . Think about this if the government can make you buy healthcare that you dont want how about making you buy a new car and give up the one you have and nothing in return. Or tear down your perfectly good house and build a new one in the name of economic progress.I know that sounds crazy but where does it stop.I plan to retire here a year or two and health insurance is a big consern but I dont want pay more for something I wont get. I want to make up my own minder as to what to buy. The health care bill takes away your freedoms which makes this country a dictatorship dont care how you look at it. Maybe you think I'm wrong and that is ok but (FREEDOM) here today gone tommarow,very good possiblity more and more control is not a good thing. OK go for it folks and tear the truth apart.

One last thing and this is not a personal slam, but a person was voted into office with the promise of change and the country bought it not knowing what they buying into that to me was not a smart purchase. We can't afford the payments of this mistake.

It was only a tweak aimed at the people who defend him against everything and anything said about him, without exception, in a kind of religious fervor. It seems to have struck a nerve with you.

I know you've said much worse against public figures you don't support. I called him "exalted". You should be thrilled.

Dale, the idea that you have expressed, the people do not know what is good for them and therefore the more knowledgeable among us must make the decisions for them has been popular for many hundreds of years. The first clear expression of this idea that I know of is laid out in Plato’s Republic. A brief summary of his ideas is that were to be three classes of people for his ideal government – the rulers who would dictate the rules and laws, the producers who would follow these laws and the accessories (we would describe them as the police and military) who would assure that the producers conformed to the directives of the rulers.

This idea has been repeated many times over the centuries. The Roman Empire replaced the Roman Republic using force of arms to assure that the people (the producers) conform to their leaders ideas. This transformation occurred in the time of Julius Caesar when he became dictator. The same idea was used by the Roman Catholic Church to ban individual reading of the Bible. Ordinary people could not be trusted to understand the word of God – therefore the priest had to explain the meaning to them.

This same theme is repeated through the ages, but let us look at the application of it in the 20th century. The first idea that comes to mind is Eugenics - "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population." This idea was strongly advocated by most of the scientific community together with such notable leaders as Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. They believed firmly and honestly that the undesirables, among them Jews, Negros and Asians needed to be kept from ‘breeding’ and eventually eliminated. Let’s not go into the application of this idea by the Third Reich – that horror we do not need to revisit.

The actions of Stalin is Russia, Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia were all based upon the belief that they knew better than the average person what was good for their country and the overall welfare of their people.

This country started with the declaration that, “All men are created equal and endowed by their creator …. with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” What we are talking about here is liberty – the right to purchase or not to purchase a government product.

You may or not be right that this will be good for the average American citizen. Where you are wrong, IMHO, is believeing that your intelligence is right and the opinion of the people is wrong. That difference entitles you to make the decision for the unenlightened. I disagree, I trust the American people to see through the BS and make a logical decision.

You make too much of what I said. I was merely trying to point out that most people were basing their opposition to the health care bill on the rhetoric and fear-mongering emanating from Fox Noise and the right wing, not on the actual substance of the law.

... yada, yada, yada ... except for blacks, women, homosexuals, people under 21 years of age, indentured servants, slaves, ethnic groups we don't like, ... yada, yada, yada

The need doesn't stay static. Things change over time. Well, some things. The Healthcare crisis in this country is still producing many, many more "have-nots" then we can afford, but there is a whole bunch of "haves" that are very happy with that.

Xavier

Well said.

The Declaration of Independence laid out a set of Principles to guide this country as it went forward. Since 1776, your exceptions have been eliminated. However, the principles that led to their elimination have not changed.

You may wish to read Richie’s signature line again and reflect on Franklin’s wisdom. My new signature line is dedicated to those who believe we should sacrifice liberty to achieve various benefits, whether those benefits are real or imagined.

Dale, I still believe strongly in the wisdom of the people and their freedom to choose.

How many have seen this story from Friday?

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/a.../obama-shh.jpg
The Obama administrations HHS approves 200 more new healthcare reform waivers, bringing the total of waivers to 1,372.

This is a tacit admission that Obamacare is fundamentally flawed and needs to be scrapped. The reform needs to be reformed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...eform-waivers-