PDA

View Full Version : Can we all agree on the following:?



GrassrootsConservative
10-03-2012, 10:01 PM
For the right: Feel free to add to this list.
For the left: Feel free to debate me intelligently.


Mitt Romney points that really hit home for me, that I think everyone (as Americans) should agree on are as follows:

1) The role of government isn't just to keep people safe, the role of government is to protect the U.S. constitution. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is where it all starts. Yes or No?

2) The best way to reduce debt is not by raising taxes, but by economic growth and then reducing spending. Yes or No?

3) States having competition for people living in them with their own policies strictly exclusive to that state is MUCH better than the federal government mandating and regulating the entire country, and reducing states rights. Yes or No?

Captain Obvious
10-03-2012, 10:03 PM
Yes Yes Yes

Trinnity
10-03-2012, 10:04 PM
Yep. Romney was great. This race has changed.
Obama...empty suit. Same old tired bullshit.

KC
10-03-2012, 10:07 PM
For the right: Feel free to add to this list.
For the left: Feel free to debate me intelligently.


Mitt Romney points that really hit home for me, that I think everyone (as Americans) should agree on are as follows:

1) The role of government isn't just to keep people safe, the role of government is to protect the U.S. constitution. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is where it all starts. Yes or No?

2) The best way to reduce debt is not by raising taxes, but by economic growth and then reducing spending. Yes or No?

3) States having competition for people living in them with their own policies strictly exclusive to that state is MUCH better than the federal government mandating and regulating the entire country, and reducing states rights. Yes or No?

1) As long as you mean these as negative rights. I may be mistaken but it felt like Romney was invoking the right to life as a positive in his reference to security. I think that that view leads to a much more broad view of the federal government.

2) Yes.

3) Most of the time, yes.

Agravan
10-03-2012, 10:11 PM
1) As long as you mean these as negative rights. I may be mistaken but it felt like Romney was invoking the right to life as a positive in his reference to security. I think that that view leads to a much more broad view of the federal government.

2) Yes.

3) Most of the time, yes.

Please explain #1 above. Not being confrontational, just honestly curious as to what is meant by the statement.

GrassrootsConservative
10-03-2012, 10:12 PM
1) As long as you mean these as negative rights. I may be mistaken but it felt like Romney was invoking the right to life as a positive in his reference to security. I think that that view leads to a much more broad view of the federal government.


Security is good though. Security is what keeps missile defenses up and the National Guard.
If you mean we no longer financially able to police the world due to the sheer size of it, I'd agree with you. (However, our allies like Israel should be defended if they are threatened or attacked... and that's something I don't think the current administration would do)

Thanks for the discussion everyone, I'm just trying to make sure we agree on the big picture.

Deadwood
10-03-2012, 10:14 PM
For me it was the closing statement. Romney was smart to go last, of course, and after Obama's stuttering and stammering, Romney laid out a clear comparison between himself and Obama, especially on jobs, and Obamacare.

It's that kind of thing people remember.

And you're right, this election has changed dramatically. When you have NBC and ABC both clearly stating that Romney won, with some vague apologies for Obama, then it's a new ball game.

What will sell, is the clips.....each one I've heard so far, Obama sounds hesitant, unsure of himself, while Romney is hard hitting direct and to the point. I don't think I have seen a more clearly defined presentation since Reagan mopped the floor with Carter....and, for the record, that was a neck and neck race until the first debate too.

For the record, he who clearly wins the first debate, usually carries the momentum through to the end. I doubt Obama can do much now to win it back....

It is Romney's to lose now.

GrassrootsConservative
10-03-2012, 10:17 PM
Lol I was too busy hammering my thoughts into my keyboard to check the news. Rush Limbaugh already told me what's going to happen, anyway.

Deadwood
10-03-2012, 10:17 PM
Oh, Yes
Yes
Yes.

I thought it very wise to expand the "security" aspect as Obama has had bragging rights on "killing Osama", but is dreadful on the constitution.

I doubt the average voter will see his comments as an extension toward rights of the unborn.

Deadwood
10-03-2012, 10:20 PM
I don't know if they got to it at the beginning as I was madly trying to get a radio signal up here in the Great White North. But I am surprised Obama didn't even get to mention immigration. It's a weak spot for Romney and it didn't come up at all, at least not in the last two thirds of it.

Meanwhile, I kept hearing Romney on about "higher wages" and "12 million jobs."

That's what will sell.

Deadwood
10-03-2012, 10:23 PM
Security is good though. Security is what keeps missile defenses up and the National Guard.
If you mean we no longer financially able to police the world due to the sheer size of it, I'd agree with you. (However, our allies like Israel should be defended if they are threatened or attacked... and that's something I don't think the current administration would do)

Thanks for the discussion everyone, I'm just trying to make sure we agree on the big picture.

And that's a weak spot for Obama.


I doubt many people realize it, but NATO is faltering under Obama. His stand on Israel's 1967 borders has seriously impacted the NATO core countries which have very large Jewish populations.

Certainly Canada, Germany, France and Poland are worried. But that hasn't really come out in the US. It has had big play in the international press and here in Canada.

IGetItAlready
10-03-2012, 10:44 PM
Romney hit of the night: "Mr president you're entitled as president to your own airplane and your own house but not to your own facts".

BOOM!!!

In the immortal words of Tony the Tiger, that was grrrrrrrrreat!

KC
10-03-2012, 10:48 PM
Please explain #1 above. Not being confrontational, just honestly curious as to what is meant by the statement.

Sure, no problem. First of all, I don't have a problem with national security. It's just that I kind of felt like Mitt was invoking the right of life as something that made it legitimate for government to take an active role in protecting life. The right of life as classical liberal philosophers meant it was something the government cannot take away (a negative right, like freedom of speech). Of course the government has to take action when other governments threaten its citizens, but what if something else, like a health condition, is threatening the life of some individual citizen? Does the government have a duty to protect that person, via health insurance or some other form, as well?

(Don't get me wrong here either, I think we health care should be accessible to people of all walks of life, but government provided health care may not be the best approach. I think private non profits would be better)

Cigar
10-04-2012, 07:14 AM
YES - Obviously
NO - Ben there, done that; it failed, it crashed and it burned for everyone with eyes to see in 2008
NO - I don't want a State to dictate where I live based on State Politics.

That's my opinion, and you don't have to like it.

oceanloverOH
10-04-2012, 07:30 AM
yes, yes, yes

Calypso Jones
10-04-2012, 07:55 AM
Oh, Yes
Yes
Yes.

I thought it very wise to expand the "security" aspect as Obama has had bragging rights on "killing Osama", but is dreadful on the constitution.

I doubt the average voter will see his comments as an extension toward rights of the unborn.

that actually crossed my mind for a brief second and i thought that might be where he was going...and although i think it might have been subtle sign to potential supporters that he does swing that way, he did not go that way in the rest of his response. It was a good response.

I'll tell you what really took me back. When Obama said that the first responsibility of the Fed Gov't was to protect the citizenry. Frankly i thought that might be a foreign concept to him. Now that i think about it, it seemed so foreign to him that it might have just been an answer drilled into his head for such a question. Not that he believes it since he's done everything in his power to do just the opposite.

It was obama's finest 3 seconds.

GrassrootsConservative
10-04-2012, 08:42 AM
YES - Obviously
NO - Ben there, done that; it failed, it crashed and it burned for everyone with eyes to see in 2008
NO - I don't want a State to dictate where I live based on State Politics.

That's my opinion, and you don't have to like it.

Eh, it's nice to have responses from the other side of the aisle. If everyone was correct there wouldn't be much discussion. ;)

Peter1469
10-04-2012, 04:28 PM
Sure, no problem. First of all, I don't have a problem with national security. It's just that I kind of felt like Mitt was invoking the right of life as something that made it legitimate for government to take an active role in protecting life. The right of life as classical liberal philosophers meant it was something the government cannot take away (a negative right, like freedom of speech). Of course the government has to take action when other governments threaten its citizens, but what if something else, like a health condition, is threatening the life of some individual citizen? Does the government have a duty to protect that person, via health insurance or some other form, as well?

(Don't get me wrong here either, I think we health care should be accessible to people of all walks of life, but government provided health care may not be the best approach. I think private non profits would be better)

The idea of the Constitution and negative rights means that the Constitution tells the federal government what they cannot do to citizens.

The concept of positive rights would mean that the Constitution would affirmatively state what the federal government must do for citizens. Search you tube. Obama has spoken about this before.

KC
10-04-2012, 05:23 PM
The idea of the Constitution and negative rights means that the Constitution tells the federal government what they cannot do to citizens.

The concept of positive rights would mean that the Constitution would affirmatively state what the federal government must do for citizens. Search you tube. Obama has spoken about this before.

I'm not talking about the Constitution, more talking about natural rights and the declaration of independence. The rights of life, liberty and property were described as unalienable rights. Similarly, Locke meant that the government was not to take these rights away from you. Wouldn't they be considered negative rights for this reason?

Peter1469
10-04-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm not talking about the Constitution, more talking about natural rights and the declaration of independence. The rights of life, liberty and property were described as unalienable rights. Similarly, Locke meant that the government was not to take these rights away from you. Wouldn't they be considered negative rights for this reason?

I believe so, yes.

The government providing health care would be a positive right.

GrassrootsConservative
10-05-2012, 02:42 PM
Bump for more opinions.

coolwalker
10-05-2012, 02:49 PM
r = 1
d = 0