Politics Romney - Is he ready?

I agree that what happens in "church" is not the government's business. How the law recognizes the unions between people is the governments business.

I see no reason that under the law "married" people be treated any different than single people. Many don't take the time to really understand my position on this issue, because it is not the Republican position, it is not a Christian position, it is not the Democrat Party position, or the Gay position. I think everyone should be treated the same and should be able to enter into any type of civil union (governed by contract) of their choice. I don't care if it is one guy and 100 women, or one woman and 100 guys.

I have my views he has his.

A person not "legally born" in the US can not run for President and will never be able to run. Perhaps, you won't see the broader point if you get bogged down in the minutia of every comparison. But there is a broader point that you have not responded to.

 

There is no broader point.

It is ludicrous to compare legislating against acts of personal, private behavior to a "right" to run for political office.

 

As an aside, one of Romney's judicial advisors is Robert Bork who does not believe in a constitutional right of privacy.

According to Bork, the Supreme Court's decision in Griswald V CT was wrong (striking down a law that prohibited sale of contraception to married couples), Lawrence v TX was wrong (striking down sodomy law that allowed the state to arrest two consenting males in the privacy of their bedroom) and Roe v Wade was wrong.

This is the kind of Justice we might expect from Romney.

 

meanwhile, back in reality, the problems continue for the sinking ship of mitt's campaign from mitt's idiotic speech.

the nonsense about the "dependent 46%" may be conventional "wisdom" amongst the american poujadistes (a neo-fascist movement in france from the 1950s that's eerily similar to mainstream american conservatism these days), but stated by someone who could have the power to shape policy it is not only stupid but dangerous---framing a population as "social parasites" has a really ugly history in the 20th century.

but the real idiocy came with his statements about palestinians:

Mitt Romney tells donors Palestinians 'have no interest' in peace in new video | World news | guardian.co.uk

after spending his stay in israel on his knees in front of the israeli far right vigorously moving his head back and forth in agreement with the most ludicrous justifications for israeli colonialism in the west bank and brutalization of gaza...why you'd almost think that people with no credibility like john bolton are advising him on foreign policy.

o wait....

 

^That is a good article. There is a real discussion that can be had about 'entitlements', but it's not happening.

And ambition and motivation are the big problems I think we have today. But raising or lowering taxes 2% if I make it big won't cause me to start a new business.

Oh, and I'm part of the 53% and I can prove it.

 

i don't think david brooks very interesting. he shares that annoying tendency of thomas freidman's to address banalities in sweeping terms. he is a conservative columnist. the problems that the united states has stem more from overall allocation priorities---40% of gdp to the military? god knows how much to heimat security to build a national surveillance state? that's not on the table and there is no serious discussion.

things are compounded by the debilitating fatuousness of the still-dominant economic logic, this neo-liberal stuff that's the cause of the financial crisis and which offers no way out of it. it's an indication of a kind of cognitive paralysis that it remains a dominant ideology. this is apparently what happens when empires start to fade.

the interesting thing about the brooks article is the assault on romney's campaign.

there's apparently a consensus amongst conservative types in england anyway that romney has no chance:
Conservatives expect Barack Obama re-election in US | Politics | The Guardian

of course, it hardly seems to matter how dismal a campaign gets to the us press because treating it as a sporting event draws audiences and advertising dough.

mitt's idiotic comments on palestine/israel:

Romney suffers fresh blow in second day of fallout from leaked video | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

If a few coal workers lose their jobs, that would be a great thing. I am doing my part to help not use the coal and have them suffer for the pollution they cause.

 

“Attendance was mandatory but no one was forced to attend the event.”

Priceless.

I'll try to remember for future events that when management states my presence at a meeting is mandatory, it doesn't mean I actually have to attend unless they've got a gun to my head.

 

So says the person who can not see it. Not a good response. Do you see the flaw in your response from a broader point of view?

 

I have been trying to understand your concept of being anti-gay simply for holding a view that marriage between a man and a woman has a unique role in society, specifically the family structure suited to propagate the human race in a manner that provides security and nurturing to children. People can have legitimate reasons for a position that has nothing to do with being "anti" everything else. Why are you ignoring this simple line of questioning? I give examples outlining the flaws in your logic, and you don't see the connections - o.k. Just because you don't get it is another issue.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM ---

You overly simplify some complex Constitutional questions. Is it o.k. for it to be illegal for a person to inject heroin into their body in the privacy of their bedroom? Do you have a real libertarian view on these issues? Or are you a pretender? Are you in favor of deregulation in the context of all these types of laws or just a select few? Do I have the right not to buy health care insurance? Oh, the can of worms you want to open - I am guessing without realizing it.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM ---

This statement is is true, best thing I have read here in sometime. I doubt the country can have such a discussion, and our failure to do so will lead to our demise or at least going the way of Greece and some other European nations.

 

If some people (not coal workers) can not afford to heat their homes, is that a great thing?
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM ---

No.

Unicorns are mythical creatures. I have seen depictions of what people believe unicorns look like.

Here is a picture -



Perhaps I don't get your broader point. What is it?
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM ---

Why didn't you say that from the start of this???

I agree that some can hold a true anti-gay position.

Hold on! I never wrote that it is impossible for gay couples to build families..., isn't this a red hearing? Or do you fail to see the broader point regarding propagating the human race?

 

It is not very complex to Bork. As an "originalist.," his view is simply that people have no general right to privacy because it is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.