Mitt Romney talks about gun control in 2007

[tallmike]

I hate medicare and social security far more.

Really? How do your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who were forced to pay into those programs all their working lives feel about them?

They don't like it. I don't like paying into it. I think that makes us equal.

Now that that's out of the way, We'd like to hear your proposal/s for replacement of SS and Medicare. We're especially interested in how you'd treat those who have only 20-30 years invested in the programs and where the money is coming from to reimburse those who are yet too young to receive any benefits.

I do not propose we replace them, I propose we abolish them. It is a ponzi scheme and some folks are going to win while some are going to lose. The longer we keep it going the more folks who are going to lose so my argument is that it is best if we stop it now.

I realize that it will never go away because of folks, like you, who look at it and say "what about me? I paid into this for xx years. I am entitled..." Well, sorry that money is gone. Some of it was spent on the retirees as you paid it and the rest was squandered by congress. I have paid into it for 22 years now and I know that my investment is lost, I would rather not carry on the legacy of lost investment to my children by forcing the program to continue.

[Oldgringo]

I hate medicare and social security far more.

Really? How do your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who were forced to pay into those programs all their working lives feel about them?

They don't like it. I don't like paying into it. I think that makes us equal.

Now that that's out of the way, We'd like to hear your proposal/s for replacement of SS and Medicare. We're especially interested in how you'd treat those who have only 20-30 years invested in the programs and where the money is coming from to reimburse those who are yet too young to receive any benefits.

I do not propose we replace them, I propose we abolish them. It is a ponzi scheme and some folks are going to win while some are going to lose. The longer we keep it going the more folks who are going to lose so my argument is that it is best if we stop it now.

I realize that it will never go away because of folks, like you, who look at it and say "what about me? I paid into this for xx years. I am entitled..." Well, sorry that money is gone. Some of it was spent on the retirees as you paid it and the rest was squandered by congress. I have paid into it for 22 years now and I know that my investment is lost, I would rather not carry on the legacy of lost investment to my children by forcing the program to continue.

You win.

[The Annoyed Man]

But I simply won't back down from expressing my belief that this is misguided, because it will eventually lead to the very things that we ALL rail against as conservatives, whether we are republicans or not.

My uncle, still a practicing pastor up in Amarillo, told me that Jesus wanted us to preach the gospel of love, rather than tell people they were cursed to eternal damnation if they didn't bring Jesus into their hearts. It would seem to me that the strength of your argument should be based on the merits of the candidate you support, not on telling them how "obviously" misguided they are I think that's the core of my argument.

In another life, I might well have been a pastor. The gospel of Christ is a gospel of love. What is also implicit in it is what happens if you don't accept it. When I witness my faith, I don't talk about eternal damnation. When I am asked, I explain that none of us is good enough or can ever be good enough to enter heaven on our own power. When I am asked what that means, I show them the illustration of the cross bridging the unbridgeable chasm. When I am asked what happens if we don't cross the chasm on that cross, I don't withhold the truth.

That's what I'm doing here: not withholding the truth. I'm not judging you or anybody else. I am telling you what I believe will be the result of your inaction or action. It is my impression that this discussion has progressed well past the point of "witnessing," and we are now deep into the discussion of what follows our actions or lack thereof, and "playing the movie forward," to borrow a term from 12 stepping.

At the end of the day, you and I are going to do or not do whatever it is we've chosen. We'll either agree or disagree. Either way, what actually happens—the actual reality—is going to prove which of us was misguided. I believe very strongly in my position, as you apparently also believe in yours. When other members here have argued against my position, I have not taken it as judgement of me. I have taken it as incorrect argument. No more, and no less. But somehow, you're taking it as my judging you. You couldn't be further from the truth. I try to live my life by Biblical principles—not always successfully, but that is my touchstone. According to those principles, "Judgement," as in "Condemnation," is God's alone. Also according to those principles, we are to judge (small "j") the truth or falsehood of what we see. We are called to judge (small "j") when we see what we believe to be unbiblical behavior from our fellow believers and to enter into accountability with one another to make sure that our behaviors are in line with our beliefs.

Politically speaking, you and I evidently do not share the same beliefs. I can neither judge you, nor hold you accountable. I can however reject your assessment of the truth, and I can argue in favor of mine. If you perceive that as "judgement," then I can't help that.

However, in the interest of preserving your harmony, I will keep my opinions to myself from now on and bow out of this useless and unproductive discussion. Enjoy the rapids. I'm getting off upstream from them.

[OldCannon]

Politically speaking, you and I evidently do not share the same beliefs. I can neither judge you, nor hold you accountable. I can however reject your assessment of the truth, and I can argue in favor of mine. If you perceive that as "judgement," then I can't help that.

However, in the interest of preserving your harmony, I will keep my opinions to myself from now on and bow out of this useless and unproductive discussion. Enjoy the rapids. I'm getting off upstream from them.

Actually, I think we DO share the same beliefs, I just think we assess our political choices from _slightly_ different perspectives. I really like reading your comments on here, TAM, and I've never meant any disrespect to what you've said.

I also agree that this thread has pretty much run its own course

[Oldgringo]

Everybody wins, nobody loses. Lock 'er up!

[anygunanywhere]

I hate medicare and social security far more.

Really? How do your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who were forced to pay into those programs all their working lives feel about them?

They don't like it. I don't like paying into it. I think that makes us equal.

Now that that's out of the way, We'd like to hear your proposal/s for replacement of SS and Medicare. We're especially interested in how you'd treat those who have only 20-30 years invested in the programs and where the money is coming from to reimburse those who are yet too young to receive any benefits.

I do not propose we replace them, I propose we abolish them. It is a ponzi scheme and some folks are going to win while some are going to lose. The longer we keep it going the more folks who are going to lose so my argument is that it is best if we stop it now.

I realize that it will never go away because of folks, like you, who look at it and say "what about me? I paid into this for xx years. I am entitled..." Well, sorry that money is gone. Some of it was spent on the retirees as you paid it and the rest was squandered by congress. I have paid into it for 22 years now and I know that my investment is lost, I would rather not carry on the legacy of lost investment to my children by forcing the program to continue.

The last 20 to 30 years of history is peppered with attempts to fix the SS and MC programs. The attempts fill the entire spectrum of ideas up to and including privatization. Most of the attempts have been from the R side not the D side.

The D side continues with the entitlement mentality yet you appear to openly defend the obamatrons and their programs as harmless.

Not making sense.

Anygunanywhere

[03Lightningrocks]

Another vote for "The Lock". Politics can sure get nasty...LOL.

[varko]

Look here.

TAM has summed it up rather succintly. Either vote for the current POTUS OR vote for someone with a chance of beating him. There is no middle, feel good, ground.

Masterfully put TAM.

I summed up a post on another forum this way:
Insomuch as we can REASONABLY know the consequences of our choices, we are responsible for them. It is not unreasonable to make the claim that your vote (or no-vote) will either help or hinder the reelection of Obama. Your choice will have a consequence. You are responsible for your choice.

Anygunanywhere’s sig line puts it more eloquently:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

I would only add that the “act” must be responsible.

[74novaman]

Anygunanywhere’s sig line puts it more eloquently:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

I would only add that the “act” must be responsible.

Excepting the part in bold, this sort of thinking: "not acting is acting, non violence is violence" is the exact justification groups like the Weather Underground used in the 60s/70s to justify their domestic terrorism.

Just something to think about. I think its a very slippery slope to being going down when we start saying everything someone does against what we want is by default helping the other guy.

And to be frank, it won't matter in Texas anyway. We will go Republican. I will most likely vote for Mitt as my part in helping remove Obama from the White House. But to paint those who will vote 3rd party as out and out Obama supporters isn't helpful, in my opinion.

[Maxwell]

While I would like to see a different canidate that Romney I also have to agree that any vote NOT for the GOP canidate, whomever that me be, is a vote for the iObama. And I can't stomach that at all.

[Ameer]

That's backwards. Any vote not for Obama is a vote against Obama. If you want to count it as a vote for Romulans you can do what you want but the simple truth is a vote against Obama is a vote against Obama no matter how much LSD is involved. (Lies. Spin. Deception.)

[anygunanywhere]

That's backwards. Any vote not for Obama is a vote against Obama. If you want to count it as a vote for Romulans you can do what you want but the simple truth is a vote against Obama is a vote against Obama no matter how much LSD is involved. (Lies. Spin. Deception.)

It is only a vote against Obama IF OBAMA DOES NOT GET REELECTED.

Remember H. Ross Perot??

Go ahead and vote third, fourth, whatever party. Feel good about yourself when the obamatrons have their way.

If you think that a GOP house and senate will prevent his doing anything, PM me for some land I want to sell you.

Anygunanywhere

[Ameer]

I could say a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama no matter which one wins and that would be twice as true as the LSD.

[gdanaher]

Many of you were not alive in the 70's or if you were, you were far too young to appreciate politics, and much of that period has been relegated to a footnote in the old U.S. History After WWII book. Let me just mention Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford (the only POTUS never to be elected as President or Vice President). The nation was in the dumps and was looking for an HONEST man after Watergate, Viet Nam and Nixon's resignation. Perhaps a preacher-type of guy. The Republicans had fouled things up pretty well and the Democrats weren't much better but came up with this governor from Georgia. Yep he was honest, straight up and caring. Just what the people wanted. Three years later folks were prepared to slash their wrists. He was just a little too honest, straight up and caring for most people. The moral of the story is that you need to be careful what you ask for. Gerald Ford might have worked out just fine, given a chance.

[OldCannon]

That's backwards. Any vote not for Obama is a vote against Obama. If you want to count it as a vote for Romulans you can do what you want but the simple truth is a vote against Obama is a vote against Obama no matter how much LSD is involved. (Lies. Spin. Deception.)

It is only a vote against Obama IF OBAMA DOES NOT GET REELECTED.

Remember H. Ross Perot??

Go ahead and vote third, fourth, whatever party. Feel good about yourself when the obamatrons have their way.

There's something missing from this equation though. I hear you concern, and I think none of us want to see that, um, person, get re-elected. The reality, however, is that a 3rd party candidate is FAR more likely to take votes away from the independent voters that threw their hat in the ring with Obama in '08. It's far more likely to look like this IF a strong 3rd party contender comes up (2 party vs 3 party election):
| --- Far Left --- | ---------------------- Left ------------------------ | ---------------------- Moderates ---------------------- | ---------------------- Right ---------------------- | --- Far Right --- |
| ------------------------------------------------------Obama --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- Romney ------------------------------------------------------ |
| ----------- Obama ----------- | -------------------- 3rd Party Guy ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- Romney -------------------------------------------------- |

Either way, Romney wins. This race is definitely NOT at all like the one with Perot. This presumes that the GOP and Romney don't take a turn into the far right ditch and do something that polarizes the Democrat base.

Either way, I am predicting that Obama gets killed in an electoral landslide almost as badly as the '72 election, unless the Dems find a way to buy votes this year (people are already figuring out that "free" healthcare isn't going to be so free). They don't even have a true platform to run on right now, aside from "Hate The Rich." I also predict that Romney is going to make Obama have a Mr. Cool meltdown during the presidential debates. I, for one, am REALLY looking forward to this election cycle