Romney might not be able to live this down....

[Buftex]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mitt-romney-haunted-by-past-of-trying-to-help-unin,20097/

[UConn James]

Not the Onion's best effort....

 

But really, I'm not sure why some Republicans are quite so rabid about it.

 

The facts are that the Massachusetts legislature was going to pass a statewide near-universal health insurance bill with or without his input. His participation injected some fiscal stipulations that made it better. Not perfect, but better. He didn't agree with everything in it, nor does he wholly agree with how the administration of it has been tweaked under Deval Patrick, that has caused costs to increase. The system as originally designed was just about fiscally negligible.

 

To reiterate, this was a state program, based on the conditions in Massachusetts. Romney never said this was a model for a national program. In fact, he said that it wouldn't work nationally, and that each other state should do what works for them based on their own conditions. I don't get how such a "state's rights" stance could be called un-Republican. He's called for a "repeal and replace" of the national system pushed through by the Democrats.

 

If there is some blame in it, it's that Romney gave the left an inch and, predictably, they took an ell.

[Buftex]

Not the Onion's best effort....

 

But really, I'm not sure why some Republicans are quite so rabid about it.

 

The facts are that the Massachusetts legislature was going to pass a statewide near-universal health insurance bill with or without his input. His participation injected some fiscal stipulations that made it better. Not perfect, but better. He didn't agree with everything in it, nor does he wholly agree with how the administration of it has been tweaked under Deval Patrick, that has caused costs to increase. The system as originally designed was just about fiscally negligible.

 

To reiterate, this was a state program, based on the conditions in Massachusetts. Romney never said this was a model for a national program. In fact, he said that it wouldn't work nationally, and that each other state should do what works for them based on their own conditions. I don't get how such a "state's rights" stance could be called un-Republican. He's called for a "repeal and replace" of the national system pushed through by the Democrats.

 

If there is some blame in it, it's that Romney gave the left an inch and, predictably, they took an ell.

 

That damn left! Good thing nobody else does that! Imagine how screwed we would be? Article is a joke (I know you know that), but your defense is pretty flimsy..."they made me do it".

Edited April 21, 2011 by Buftex

[DC Tom]

If Mitt Romney can live down being named "Mitt Romney", he can live down anything...

[Buftex]

Jeez...the Onion couldn't have come up with anything better than this...what a Mitt-Wit!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/mitt-romney-peacetime-gaffe_n_853798.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C58587

[DC Tom]

Jeez...the Onion couldn't have come up with anything better than this...what a Mitt-Wit!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/mitt-romney-peacetime-gaffe_n_853798.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C58587

 

In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents.

[Buftex]

In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents.

 

 

Maybe...but there are two pretty formidable declared wars...either way...I take it as yet, another of example, of a Republican candidate who is not very in touch with things...how could anyone planning on running for president say something so mindless?

 

Let me ask though, not to change the subject (Mitt is a twit), but you really think the cost of three wars (or 2 1/3) is only an "convenient excuse" for the current state of the economy? To me it seems like calling them "convenient excuse" is more a "convenient excuse".

[/dev/null]

In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents.

 

Are we living in the Pax Obamica?

[DC Tom]

Maybe...but there are two pretty formidable declared wars...either way...I take it as yet, another of example, of a Republican candidate who is not very in touch with things...how could anyone planning on running for president say something so mindless?

 

There is that. Much like "mission accomplished"...logically accurate, but a dumb public statement to make.

 

Let me ask though, not to change the subject (Mitt is a twit), but you really think the cost of three wars (or 2 1/3) is only an "convenient excuse" for the current state of the economy? To me it seems like calling them "convenient excuse" is more a "convenient excuse".

 

I refuse to answer that, not on the grounds that no matter how many times I read it, it's a blatant and idiotic setup of some kind, but also on the grounds that I pretty much already have, repeatedly.

 

Are we living in the Pax Obamica?

 

Ask the Nobel Committee.

[Buftex]

There is that. Much like "mission accomplished"...logically accurate, but a dumb public statement to make.

 

 

 

How is Romney saying we are in "peacetime", when there are 3 wars going on, "logically accurate"? How would the family of soldiers fighting in any of the places we currently have troops, or have lost family memebers, feel to find out their family isn't sacrificing for a "real war"?

 

And how does it compare to "Mission accomplished"? I would give Bush more a benefit of a doubt than Romney for the two statements...Bush was, perhaps, caught up in the emotion...Romney is just tapping his inner Palin/Bachman.

 

 

 

I refuse to answer that, not on the grounds that no matter how many times I read it, it's a blatant and idiotic setup of some kind, but also on the grounds that I pretty much already have, repeatedly.

 

 

Or maybe you just realized you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, to score points?

Edited April 27, 2011 by Buftex

[UConn James]

How is Romney saying we are in "peacetime", when there are 3 wars going on, "logically accurate"? How would the family of soldiers fighting in any of the places we currently have troops, or have lost family memebers, feel to find out their family isn't sacrificing for a "real war"?

 

And how does it compare to "Mission accomplished"? I would give Bush more a benefit of a doubt than Romney for the two statements...Bush was, perhaps, caught up in the emotion...Romney is just tapping his inner Palin/Bachman.

 

 

 

Or maybe you just realized you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, to score points?

 

We've drawn down in Iraq, to near a level that's probably not going to drop significantly in the next 30-50 years. When do we stop calling it a war? Do we still count policing the DMZ in Korea as a war?

 

Libya has been handed over to NATO. We still have troops in Bosnia. Do you count that as a war?

 

I'll give you Afghanistan. I didn't read the context from Romney, so I won't comment on that.... But my brother has now done 5 tours there, most recently returning last fall. He said that things there are pretty much coasting, sergeants (he is a First Sgt.) are eying the calender and scaling back missions, basically making it a "war for cheese." After a surge last year, there just isn't the sense that we're going to turn the corner there... or that there is a corner to turn. Just doesn't seem we're making any progress --- at least the way the war has been prosecuted with one arm tied behind our backs --- and the longer we hold up Karzai's house of cards and corruption the worse we're going to look. I hate to say it, but if we continue doing what we've done, it doesn't seem like there's going to be a "win" there whatever your definition of that is.

Edited April 27, 2011 by UConn James

[Buftex]

We've drawn down in Iraq, to near a level that's probably not going to drop significantly in the next 30-50 years. When do we stop calling it a war? Do we still count policing the DMZ in Korea as a war?

 

Libya has been handed over to NATO. We still have troops in Bosnia. Do you count that as a war?

 

I'll give you Afghanistan. I didn't read the context from Romney, so I won't comment on that.... But my brother has now done 5 tours there, most recently returning last fall. He said that things there are pretty much coasting, sergeants (he is a First Sgt.) are eying the calender and scaling back missions, basically making it a "war for cheese." After a surge last year, there just isn't the sense that we're going to turn the corner there... or that there is a corner to turn. Just doesn't seem we're making any progress --- at least the way the war has been prosecuted with one arm tied behind our backs --- and the longer we hold up Karzai's house of cards and corruption the worse we're going to look. I hate to say it, but if we continue doing what we've done, it doesn't seem like there's going to be a "win" there whatever your definition of that is.

 

Romney was making the point that Obama has run up the defecit to record numbers during "peacetime"...DC seems to be making the point (I think) that using "war costs" as an excuse for part of the problems with the defecit is merely a "convenient excuse"...and that Romney saying we are in "peace" is merely a "logical inaccuracy". I don't see it...

[DC Tom]

Romney was making the point that Obama has run up the defecit to record numbers during "peacetime"...DC seems to be making the point (I think) that using "war costs" as an excuse for part of the problems with the defecit is merely a "convenient excuse"...and that Romney saying we are in "peace" is merely a "logical inaccuracy". I don't see it...

 

Because that wasn't the point I was making, dumbass. Not our fault you can't read.

[Buftex]

Because that wasn't the point I was making, dumbass. Not our fault you can't read.

 

 

Sorry. Your an idiot...logically accurate. Not my fault you are too pompus to explain yourself...

 

Your first post on the Romney gaffe:

 

"In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents."

 

I asked you a question (do you not consider the expense of the two-three wars as a factor in the current financial situation?) your immediate answer was:

 

"I refuse to answer that, not on the grounds that no matter how many times I read it, it's a blatant and idiotic setup of some kind, but also on the grounds that I pretty much already have, repeatedly."

You made one post on this point, so I am not sure where you "repeatedly" explained your position.

 

It just sounds like you are not man enough to realize, like Mitt-wit, you said something really stupid. Who are "his oppenents"...what is being "convieniently" excused? I assumed, you were talking about Romney's oppenents? I assume you meant the "wars" were merely a "convenient excuse" for Obama to use as part of the reason for our defecit woes? Wisen me enlightened one! WTF are you trying to say?

 

 

I am sorry if I missed your point in the reams of other posts you have made over the years...you could just answer the question, or ignore it...

Edited April 28, 2011 by Buftex

[DC Tom]

Sorry. Your an idiot...logically accurate. Not my fault you are too pompus to explain yourself...

 

Your first post on the Romney gaffe:

 

"In Romney's defense, there's a long, long history of "peacetime" not including dinky little undeclared wars. For example, "Pax Britannica". It's less a "gaffe" than it is a convenient excuse for his opponents."

 

I asked you a question (do you not consider the expense of the two-three wars as a factor in the current financial situation?) your immediate answer was:

 

"I refuse to answer that, not on the grounds that no matter how many times I read it, it's a blatant and idiotic setup of some kind, but also on the grounds that I pretty much already have, repeatedly."

You made one post on this point, so I am not sure where you "repeatedly" explained your position.

 

It just sounds like you are not man enough to realize, like Mitt-wit, you said something really stupid. Who are "his oppenents"...what is being "convieniently" excused? I assumed, you were talking about Romney's oppenents? I assume you meant the "wars" were merely a "convenient excuse" for Obama to use as part of the reason for our defecit woes? Wisen me enlightened one! WTF are you trying to say?

 

 

I am sorry if I missed your point in the reams of other posts you have made over the years...you could just answer the question, or ignore it...

 

1) Your question wasn't even tenuously related to my first post.

2) I've stated my opinion on all three wars repeatedly on this board. Don't waste my !@#$ing time.

3) Your inability to see that there's no relation between my observation of the historical context of Romney's statement and the cost of the wars is in no way a reflection on me.

 

[Buftex]

1) Your question wasn't even tenuously related to my first post.

2) I've stated my opinion on all three wars repeatedly on this board. Don't waste my !@#$ing time.

3) Your inability to see that there's no relation between my observation of the historical context of Romney's statement and the cost of the wars is in no way a reflection on me.

 

 

Sorry DC, I don't spend my time following your every post, like your legion of fans here...you are giving Romney far more credit than he deserves, in this instance...on top of being an idiot!

[IDBillzFan]

Sorry DC, I don't spend my time following your every post, like your legion of fans here...you are giving Romney far more credit than he deserves, in this instance...on top of being an idiot!

Sounds to me like Romney made a mistake. Let's hope he doesn't bring this message to the other 56 states.

[DC Tom]

Sorry DC, I don't spend my time following your every post, like your legion of fans here...you are giving Romney far more credit than he deserves, in this instance...on top of being an idiot!

 

Sounds like you think "peacetime" was suddenly redefined in 2002. Again...your stupidity, not my problem.

[Adam]

What happened in Massachusetts is not Romneycare, nor is what was passed nationally Obamacare. It what they were able to get the legislature to pass to their desk. This inviolved going through both houses and being subject to numerous opinions. It also involved the powerful healthcare lobby, which is stronger than the Democrat and Republican parties combined.

 

When it comes down to it, I will take a bigger look at his record than I have in the past. I don't really favor a particular party, but I do favor former Governors, as they have previous executive experience.

[Buftex]

Sounds like you think "peacetime" was suddenly redefined in 2002. Again...your stupidity, not my problem.

 

You are adding context to the issue, which wasn't there...obi wan!

Edited April 29, 2011 by Buftex