The Real Mitt Romney

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.

How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in the laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.

Not that it will educate you. Demonstrated is how much Limbaugh, et al have so subverted so many Americans. Brainwashing for some is that easy. Knowledge despite facts defines an ideologue. And why so many foolishly argue a 'liberal vs conservative' myth.

Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

What's not clear?

The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.

Maybe I believe that God took away that function from certain people for a reason. Why should I pay for them to artificially get it back? No Viagra for YOU!

Or maybe I believe that gluttony is a sin and so obesity treatment and/or diabetes treatments is against my religion and shouldn't be covered? (1 Corr 3:16,17)

Or maybe I believe that rehab should never be covered by insurance since drunkenness is forbidden in the Bible? (Eph 5:18)

And lets not cover infections from accidents/carelessness, or lung cancer from smoking, or skin cancer from sunbathing, or vision care/contacts, or any number of things that could remotely be tied to vanity or mistreatment of your body (temple of God).

And diseases that are hereditary. God said the sins of the father will be visited upon children (Exodus 20:5), so clearly that person's ancestor's did something bad against God and these diseases are his will. Why should I pay for insurance to rectify this?




/sarcasm off

Using insurance coverage to force one person's beliefs on someone else is absolute bullcrap. It's insurance. YOU don't have to partake or utilize it or participate if it violates YOUR beliefs. But forcing me to suffer for your religion is asinine. And I, personally, will fight it to the bitter end.

[infinite monkey]

Awesome, stormie!

[Flint]

BigV, post #211, did you see? A few pages back...

[Flint]

Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.

Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me)

For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:

The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.

[infinite monkey]

Where was it buried? Somewhere in the last 18 pages? Who buried it? What's the context?

[glatt]

I bet it was those damn Republicans and their dirty tricks, burying Flint's post.

[Flint]

Sorry, BigV asked if anyone could explain Romney's tax plan, so I posted a brief summary of "The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate."

Then there was three or so pages of poo-flinging... (nothing to do with my post)

...and I never saw BigV's reply. Then I went back and did a post search for the terms "flint" and found BigV making a reference to my post (so now I know he read it) ...so I posted again asking BigV for clarification.

Basically, to BigV, "which part did I not explain well?"

[plthijinx]

threadjack



/threadjack

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.

Give me a link to where the Pope ordered Catholic doctrine by instilled in American laws. That's news to me, but I don't follow everything the Pope does.

Not knowledgeable about Santorum. He never interested me as a Presidential candidate.

How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.

First I can't quite nail down what reality you are in. Kennedy's religious beliefs are not a topic for this thread, in the run up to the 2012 election. I just don't believe it's relevant.

Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans. Next is to order American laws changed to protect pedophile priests. After all, that is also defacto Catholic doctrine. When you deny it, might you cite at least one source other than Fox News or an extremist talk show host?

Do you have some info or links to back up your argument? This is your assertion of truth, not mine.

[Adak]

@Stormieweather: You're free to interpret the Bible any way you like, but it may not be Catholic Doctrine.

He asked the question, I answered it, not with my opinion, but with the answer from the Bible.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

My understanding is that the Catholic owned hospitals consider prescribing and/or paying for so called "abortion pills" to be the same as providing an abortion. I don't equate providing a medication to be the same as "performing abortions, in their hospitals."

Could be, because when I ask Google it comes up with both the contraception for employees and having to perform abortions in their hospitals, in the description of the links, but none of the 20 odd links I checked had anything about having to perform abortions.

So it would appear that Adak is just repeating wild claims from right wing talk radio that have no basis.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by BigV

You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.

I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.

BigV, follow the link for the answer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssible/263541/

Edit: A second article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...

[Adak]

You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.

What's NOT to like, here?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.

What's NOT to like, here?

Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.

What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......