Romney — $50 Abortions in Massachusetts

mitt_button.jpgWord from the Romney Campaign, and from (at least once) conservative leaders who have endorsed him, is that Mitt “governed as a conservative” and “governed pro-life.”  

There is more than one lesson to be learned by Mitt’s actual record.  The first is that the claim of Romney’s conservative governance is completely bogus. The second is that we can no longer trust the judgement of his endorsers. The third is that his healthcare proposal, which he now holds out for all of America, not just Massachusetts, disqualifies him as a Republican nominee for President.

McLEAN, Va./CNW/ — Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.

Romney’s Health Care Plan:

  1. Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: )
  2. Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a),
    Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood’s guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. (“Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06)

43 thoughts on “Romney — $50 Abortions in Massachusetts

  1. Deace in the Afternoon (a popular Iowan talk show host) put together a podcast regarding his views on Romney using Romney’s own words.

    It totally shows Romney for being a liar! Please listen to it.

    “Mitt Romney Audio Blog

    Deace gives his take on the former Massachusetts governor as a presidential candidate. ”

    And then there is a good audio blog where Deace talks to two pro-family advocates from Massachusetts.

    The Real Mitt Romney

    Deace talks to two pro-family advocates from Massachusetts who have a website ( that shows the facts don’t back up Mitt Romney’s claims on where he stands on the social issues.

    And here is the document that they put out regarding their experience with Romney.

  2. Did some surfing and found some more info on the abortions in Romney’s Mass health plan. The proviso to pay for the abortions was apparently never part of Romney’s bill. Rather, it was forced into the law by the Courts. This would not surprise me either since the Mass courts are populated by left wing loonies that would surely see state funded abortions as a basic constitutional right.

    This piece of data makes me feel a bit better but my overall analysis of Mitt’s positions is not changed. He clearly decided that abortion rights/law was not going to be a hill that he would be willing to die on. Mitt is a pragmatist. The governor (nor the president) does not have a lot impact on abortion policy. I think it is fair to say that Mitt did little to nothing to advance abortion rights nor did he do anything to curtail them while guv of Mass. Abortion law is pretty much cast in concrete until such time that Roe v. Wade is overturned. As president his largest potential impact in that area is who he might nominate for future supreme court vacancies. Mitt has clearly stated he would nominate strict constructionist judges to the Court. I do believe him on that front. If we could trade one of the liberals on the Court for a decent conservative, Roe v. Wade would go down and some progress in pushing back on abortion rights might be able to be made.

  3. Hey, Girl,
    Romney’s campaign is, indeed, claiming his $50 abortions were “forced into the law by the Courts.”
    Not true.
    The Mass. courts mandated coverage only for “medically required” abortions (to save the life of the mother – an extraordinarily rare occurrance). But the $50 co-pay for ALL abortions was included by the determination of the board set up in Romney’s original bill, which, as the article points out, included Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion profiteer) but NO PRO-LIFE organization.
    So it was not “the Mass. courts… populated by left wing loonies” that did it.
    It was the Mass. Governor’s office… populated by a left wing loony.
    And it is the same, loony, socialized medicine Romney is now putting forward for All of America.

    This man is not a conservative and it is not possible for any informed conservative to think so -even if you were to believe his sleazy and deceptive claim that “the courts made me do it.” Why? Well, you, yourself said it: “…forced… by the Courts. This would not surprise me ...” It wouldn’t have surprised anyone, would it? Certainly not Mitt Romney, an expert in Massachusetts politics. So (if that scenario were true) he would have put in place a program of socialized medicine knowing the likelihood that it would result in subsidised abortions by action of the courts. This is what happens when you let the government eradicate free enterprise and make large segments of the economy Government Control Zones. This is, over the long term, the slow road to communism, one program at a time.


    But let’s close our eyes and pretend.

    Let’s pretend that it is true what Romney is now saying – that he “governed Pro-Life.” What can we conclude? That he
    deceived the Massachusetts electorate to win his office.
    He ran twice, statewide, in Mass. Both times he campaigned as Pro-Choice. Both times he went out of his way to assure the liberal Massachusetts voters that he was reliably Pro-Choice. So if, as he now claims, he “governed Pro-Life” he lied to win the office. He said whatever he needed to say to get elected and then broke his promises. Is he lying now or was he lying then? Or has he lost all track of truth, itself?

    Who could trust such a man?

    He is, in fact, a pragmatist. A systematic ideological chameleon. He has turned it into a science, a business technique, a habitual practice, a machine to accumulate vast wealth. What Romney “stands for” is constantly evolving and depends on current circumstances. No one on earth has any idea what he will do as President (except impose government-controlled universal health care on the nation). I don’t even think Romney knows. It will depend on a dialectical process Romney uses that The Reagan Wing has uncovered and I hope we have time to publish. He has used it in every business he has taken over. He used it to transform himself from the eighth-ranked RINO in the country, and a liberal Governor of the most liberal State, into a “conservative” by rhetoric alone, on Jan. 4th, 2007 to contend for the GOP nomination.

    He is a transormer. He may not even be “lying” in the traditional sense, though what he says, today, contradicts what he said a short time ago. He actually changes. Really. Constantly.

    May God save us from the Romney system. It is the death-knell of freedom.

  4. Forgive me, but really a republician as a successful govenor in Mass.? Come on, he definately appeals to other parties, there is a reason, he makes sence. How can you really win an election on abortion alone, I would love that to be true. It is just not going to happen with all the women out there that allow their bodies to be robbed of what God cherises above all – Human life. If women can continue to be thoughtless with sex abortion will always be an issue for Americans. Seems like if people thought more of human life – abortions would be only done in cases of, loss of life a mother if delivered a baby, incest or rape.


  5. Romney makes sense to whatever group he’s working with at the time. Circumstances change, he moves on. Always the silver tongue. Always the sparkle, the glow, the perfect hair.

    Oozing charm from every pore
    He oils his way across the floor.

    And he says the perfect thing. It has to be perfect, its been focus-grouped and market-tested. It’s what the consumer wants this year, this moment; it’s in the trend line.

    He’s slogans and verbal patriotic music and red white and blue fireworks set to go off at the perfect time. And if something goes wrong he keeps moving and talking and making it go away and changing the message as necessary and learning and growing and changing and selling and reassuring and selling and re-assessing and re-imaging and talking and smiling and selling. It’s cogs and wheels and twittering machinery.

    Is there a real person in there? We may never know.

  6. How is he diffent from any other Politician? Your description applies to all, I mean all, who seek the presidency. Name me one candidate who had not prostituted themselves?

  7. I think RBN has (inadvertantly of course) put his dirty little finger on something of real significance. He asserts (falsely of course) that “all politicians” prostitute themselves. It is the baseline assumption of the Pragmatist. Among the community of the unethical and amoral, the professional “moderates” who have no real beliefs, it is considered entry-level competence. If you can’t lie and prostitute yourself, you’re just not “realistic.” Thieves tell themselves “everybody does it,” and from prison bemoan their “bad luck” in getting caught. Democrats steal elections by ballot fraud in Washington State and tell themselves the “other side” is trying to supress the vote.

    “Please allow me to introduce myself
    Im a man of wealth and taste
    Ive been around for a long, long year
    Stole many a mans soul and faith…

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But whats puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game

    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints
    As heads is tails
    Just call me lucifer
    cause Im in need of some restraint
    So if you meet me
    Have some courtesy
    Have some sympathy, and some taste
    Use all your well-learned politesse
    Or Ill lay your soul to waste…”

    Among those
    for whom religion is all rhetoric…
    for whom “principle” is pandering…
    for whom public policy is a tale told by a politician, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…
    for whom life is a game…
    For Dufflepuds everywhere…
    Mitt Romney is a god.

    And anyone who actually stands on a consistent philosophy of liberty…
    is a loon.
    A nut… a demoniac… a pariah…
    Crucify him!

  8. No, it was deliberate.

    Although I love the stones, and understand the song’s context (man in general has the capacity of evil/sin), you seem to equate pragmatic folks as evil? See Doug, that is why you are such a lightning rod of controversy. It is not all ideals or all pragmatism, there is, there must be, there always will, be middle ground. On some issues, you give nor concede an inch, to get to your ultimate goal, which ultimately hurts the causes you champion. That is why Ron P will never win (too sold on his own cool aid, especially in Foreign affairs) and why Rudy will never win (too unprincipled & corrupt).

  9. You broach two issues, RBN: the nature of pragmatism and the nature of political “purity.”
    First, with regard to “pragmatism”:
    There are two popular definitions of the word: the original and classical one, which I used, above, which means ignoring right and wrong to do whatever suits your immediate purposes. For instance, can you lie about something and facilitate getting elected? (Like Huckabee.) or can you simply slaughter whole segments of Society for political or financial profit? (Like the Communists or Nazis or Planned Parenthood.) This is what some (not all as you falsely accuse) politicians do in creating a public issues profile, by “picking out” positions and rhetoric to fool the public about their intentions.
    That kind of pragmatism, the eradication of all moral concerns in one’s agenda, is always evil. It is that we decry, even if the evils are small, like saying you’re “against” abortion when you fully intend to use your office to defend and fund it. That is the characteristic at the heart of Mitt Romney. He exhibits a cynical disbelief in truth itself.
    The second definition, the one that has become more common, recently, is simply being practical. In that sense, there is nothing essentially wrong with “pragmatism,” since it simply means taking practical means to arrive at your goals, unless the means, themselves are unethical (like lying) or the goals are wrong.
    You attempt to confuse our criticism of the first with rejection of the second. That’s not right.

    The next issue, political “purity” which is closely associated with that attempt to confuse people about “pragmatism,” is reflected in your sentence, “On some issues, you give nor concede an inch, to get to your ultimate goal, which ultimately hurts the causes you champion.”
    Would you please explain to me what you mean by that? Because it can be interpreted in more than one way.
    You could be referring to something that is true about us, that we never accept lies (how unbending!) and we won’t compromise on basic moral principles.
    If this is what you mean, please explain to me how it would have been helpful to compromise on, say, exterminating Jews in Germany. The reason we need an extreme example is so that we’re actually measuring the principle accurately.The principle we’re testing, remember, is whether or not it is helpful to compromise on something agreed to be fundamentally evil.
    On the other hand, you could be saying that we insist on total agreement from candidates we support. This false claim has been made about us innumerable times and it is a blatant lie. We’ve disproved it innumerable times and some don’t care, they keep saying it. It that what you mean?
    Perhaps instead of an ambiguous slur, you could make a straightforward accusation and give some example: where have we specifically done what you accuse?
    Come on, have a little courage. Say what you mean.

  10. RBN —
    Instead of speaking in cliches why don’t you complete the sentence, “Ron Paul is a loon because…[fill in blank]”

    The pursuit of “middle ground” is a fantasy. Anyone who believes that is destined for failure. Vicotry will go to the most organized and focused, not the person who is right or good or nice or pragmatic or neutral or whatever complimentary term you’d like to call your position.

    As a matter of fact, I can’t think of any example from real life where you could gain your objective by refusing to move forward, by trading off things, by not battling toward the higher objective, that which is good. Sports, work, family, salvation, you name it, all require the abandonment of the “middle ground” to succeed to get to some ultimate end. The middle ground is simply another way of saying going around in circles.

  11. Just in case others had misunderstood the meaning of the Stones lyrics, I thought I’d better get back and explain.
    RBN (at 12) says:

    “Although I love the stones, and understand the song’s context (man in general has the capacity of evil/sin), you seem to equate pragmatic folks as evil?”

    The lyrics I quoted, at #11 that RBN is referring to, are from “Sympathy for the Devil” a hit tune by the Rolling Stones in the late ‘60s. The lyrics of the song are in the first-person, sung by Mick Jagger in the character of Satan. It is Satan who says (repeating the pragmatist mantra) “every cop is a criminal” and “all the sinners, saints.” It is Satan who is saying “everybody does it” as RBN was saying “all politicians do it.”
    My point was that it is a Satanic message. All cops are not criminals and sinners are not saints. Some politicians have character and honesty and consistent principle. “Everybody is doing it” is the reasoning of the tempter. We “must fund Planned Parenthood (who promotes pre-marital sex) because ‘everybody’ has sex early, out of wedlock”. “Everybody” smokes dope, my generation was told, so you might as well… That’s the “nature of his game” that’s “been puzzling you.”

    Interesting side note: “Sympathy for the Devil” was released on the “Beggars Banquet” albumn exactly one year to the day before the Altamont Rock Festival, organized by the Rolling Stones. Well over a quarter of a million people attended December 6, 1969 to close out the decade of decadence and destruction.
    The Stones had agreements to have the Stage protected by a group called the Hell’s Angels who had done similar work for a group called the Grateful Dead.
    When the Stones took the stage a spark of emotional electicity shot through the hundreds of thousands surrounding the stage.

    As they sang the lyrics,
    “Oh, a storm is threatning
    My very life today
    If I dont get some shelter
    Oh yeah, Im gonna fade away…
    Rape, murder!
    Its just a shot away
    Its just a shot away,” 18-yr-old Meredith Hunter approached the stage with a revolver in his pocket, high on drugs as “everybody was doing.”

    When Jagger sang the song “Sympathy for the Devil” a powerful Spirit moved through the crowd.

    (“I rode a tank,
    Held a generals rank
    When the Blitzkrieg raged
    And the bodies stank!”)

    Meredith encoutered the Angels from Hell and a conflict ensued.
    His revolver came out. He was stabbed five times. The progression of events isn’t certain.
    It is said he got off a shot before the Hells Angels beat him to death the rest of the way with the sawed-off pool cues they had brought to protect “Lucifer” on stage.

    For their services that day, the Hells Angels were paid in beer by their Satanic magesties request.
    Four people were killed at Altamont (“Woodstock West”).
    The ‘60s were over.
    The culture of death was under weigh.

  12. “Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
    My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
    No angel born in hell
    Could break that satan’s spell.
    And as the flames climbed high into the night
    To light the sacrificial rite,
    I saw satan laughing with delight
    The day the music died”

    “America Pie” by Don McLean

  13. My responses-
    Mary- Ron is a loon, and perhaps even more dangerous because of his refusal to disavow white supremacist support and campaign contributions. Additionally, his naïve and alarming foreign policy ramblings scare the hell out of me. He would leave a sadist like Sadam in power, in a critical area of the world? He would pull troops just as we are in the cusp of vindication in Iraq? That alone is why he is a loon.
    Sympathy for the devil meaning- Doug, you may employ big words, and think of yourself of being oh so clever, but come on, the song is clearly about man’s own internal capacity for evil via being cursed by the original sin! Mick himself has on numerous occasions described that as the inspiration for the song. Your silly description of the CA concert is laughable. A guy is murdered, that is all. There was no synchronization with lyrics at the time, just a really bad group of guys who happened to be evil. They exist then, they exist today, and they will always exist.

  14. One other thing, you accuse others of lying over and over. Well, consider yourself accused; Contrary to popular belief,”Under My Thumb”, not “Sympathy for the Devil” was the song the Stones were performing while Meredith Hunter was killed at the Altamont Free Concerts

  15. RBN (at 18 and 19):
    You reference Paul’s supposed“…refusal to disavow white supremacist support and campaign contributions.”
    You are probably not aware that he has explicitly DISAVOWED WHITE SUPREMACY (which is an inaccurate characterization, by Paul’s enemies (especially those in the pro-illegal amnesty camp), of some third parties who have supported him), as well as disavowing white separatism (which is an accurate characterization), which is all he is required to do morally. This is long established practice by all campaigns. Ronald Reagan was supported by Log Cabin (gay rights) Republicans, but said “they are endorsing me, I’m not endorsing them.” No campaign makes an attempt to do individual research on the opinions of its contributors, nor to return individual contributions based on purely ideological bases. This is a double-standard non-issue. You fell for it. But Ron Paul has gone even further and said that white separatists, etc., are neither needed nor welcome on his campaign.
    The attempt to paint Paul’s clearly-delineated and long proven positions as racist is a vile slander.
    The attempt to imply that he is, in any way, fascist, is not only a vile slander, it is downright stupidity. There is no one with a more anti-fascist voting record (on that criterion alone) in the history of the United States. (But, of course, you have to know two things to realize that: 1. What fascist policy is, and 2. What Paul’s voting record is.) Those who continue, when they know the facts, to make the attacks you are repeating are far more worthy than Dr. Paul of the description “loon.”

    You have disagreements with Paul on foreign policy. I think many Republicans, certainly all the other GOP candidates, do too. Are you in the habit of calling those with whom you hold serious disagreements, “loons?” Is the definition of a “loon” just someone with whom you disagree? Or is it someone you disagree with who also has views more complex than you have the capacity to comprehend? Or is it just easier to call people names than to debate their ideas?

    “…the song is clearly about man’s own internal capacity for evil…”
    I didn’t contradict that element of the lyrics. I pointed out that the lines I quoted were sung “in the first person” by the “Father Of Lies” by the song’s own terms. The allegation (of universal evil) is the message of evil incarnate. It is in precisely that sense that I employed the quotation.

    “Your silly description of the CA concert is laughable.”
    My description of the concert is factually accurate. It suggests, but does not specify, a chronology completely compatible with accounts of the event at the time of the event. I remember them from the time. I was aware that the Rolling Stones film shows Meredith Hunter, at the site, and places the killing during the song “Under My Thumb” but I’m not convinced that it was the “murder song” for several minor reasons and one major one.
    The minor reasons are:
    1) because of the conflicting accounts of the events,
    2) because the accounts from the Stones camp are, in numerous cases, transparently working to minimize any responsibility (legal or otherwise) by the Stones for the outcome,
    3) because the issue of the “security arrangements,” courtesy of the Rolling Stones, became a potentially huge legal liability the group had to deal with (The Hells angels were beating people up throughout the concert. They even hit Jefferson Airplane’s Marty Balin, knocking him out, cold, and terminating the participation of that group, because he tried to stop the Angels from beating up someone else onstage), and
    4) the film evidence (which became the profitable “Gimme Shelter”) was entirely under the control of the Stones and was heavily edited, the songs dubbed over action, excerpted, and taken out of order and much of what took place not visually shown at all, by all accounts. See (among others)

    But the major reason is because the rampant concert violence was the inevitable result of the inspiration of the music, regardless of the particular song playing during that particular incident.
    Prior to the Doors, the Stones were the “dark side” of Rock, performing songs in the first person of evil characters. The songs invite the listener to fantasize being in the role of evil. They’re great rock ’n roll and channel a surge of raw power with which it is easy to identify, as does Jagger in singing them. But here is an example of the emotions with which you identify at the climax of a song (from “Midnight Rambler” about a serial rapist/murderer):

    “Well, don’t you listen for the midnight rambler
    Play it easy, as you go
    I’m gonna smash down all your plate glass windows
    Put a fist, put a fist through your steel-plated door…

    And if you ever catch the midnight rambler
    Ill steal your mistress from under your nose
    Ill go easy with your cold fanged anger
    Ill stick my knife right down your throat, baby
    And it hurts!”

    The problem isn’t that the song “talks about evil.” It celebrates it. You have to hear Jagger doing it. He injects a wonderful surge of orgiastic angry joy into the most violent words. It makes them “really cool.” During the Stones’ best performances, as at the Doors’, a spirit of violence and evil, conjured by the performance, permeated their venues.
    The songs I quoted were played at Altamont and summoned the dark forces (if you’re a materialist, you’re welcome to think of them as “emotions”) that matched the lyrics and music and directly manifested a real violence that is unmistakable.
    That process fueled much Rock in the 60’s, making fame and millions of dollars for some, bringing early death for many and facilitating a culture of death for all America.

    A Reagan Wing article on the Rolling Stones from 2005:

  16. RBN you are a loon. Worse you are ignorant on American history and political philosophy. No, JOHN LOCKE wasn’t just a character from the TV show Lost. Thomas Paine isn’t a name of some BDSM pervert.

    RBN you know nothing of what you speak. I have run into many like you before. Most people like you are just into politics to get personal power and that is what makes you so dangerous.

  17. A song has the interpretation that the original writer has for it but also lyrics can effect people in other ways as well.

    I know this wasn’t the original intent of the writer but when I hear the lyrics:

    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints
    As heads is tails
    Just call me Lucifer
    cause I’m in need of some restraint

    I can’t help but thinking of the Left (even mentally replacing Lucifer with Liberal).

    For look at how the Leftist think. For them the cops are always the bad guy. If there’s a shooting, especially if race is involved, to the Left, it must be the the cops at fault. This has even gotten so bad that we have those border guards actually in jail.

    And look at they they hold up as idols, as people they believe worthy of admiration, as their leaders, as the “saints” of their movement. They are most often some of the most contemptible people imaginable. Often it seems that the more perverted the person is, the more of a sinner the person is, the more worthy the liberals believe that person is of being admired. I will just give you one example or else I will be here all day for the list goes in the thousands. Just think how highly they proclaim Timothy Leary even though the drug culture he promoted killed so many. Again the examples of such people the Left hold out for admiration, for their “sainthood” are so so many.

    The Left really does have an ideology that turns reality upside down. It does make heads, tails, bad, good and vice-versa. And it certainly does need restraint as so far they have been quite successful in getting their way in society.

    To many conservatives don’t understand “the nature of the Left’s game”. Too many thought that it was a simple matter of disagreement where if they just presented their facts logically to a liberal, since conservatives have truth on their side, they will come to persuade liberals to their side.

    But for the Left it wasn’t that they “disagreed” with us. It was that they considered us evil. That is why tactics of debate never worked on them. They didn’t want to come to a mutual agreement. They wanted to destroy, and they saw debate as simply another means to demonize their opponent.

    Too many conservatives operate from a position that assumes good faith on the Left. That is why time and time again we lose. Once we understand that indeed they are not the “loyal opposition” but in fact an evil enemy who will use every tactic to destroy us then we have a chance to defeat them.

    I wish some very talented conservative would do for a lack of a better word a parody on “Sympathy for the Devil” that gives an account of the evil that the Left has spread throughout the 20th and now into the 21st century.

    I would include mention of Walter Durranty and how his reports from the Soviet Union helped give the new dictatorship of Stalin credibility in the international world even as he was killing millions. While today you would be hard put to find a Leftist who would admit to a kind word about Stalin, when it counted (in the 1930s and 1940s) US Leftists were among his strongest supporters.

    Time and time again during the 20th century you saw the Left be on the wrong side of history and supporting some of the greatest evil imaginable. They still support Castro although I know someday perhaps 30 to 40 years from now they will disown him as they have now Stalin. But time and time again you see the same tactics used by the left. Although the names sometimes change (or sometimes not as often the offspring of the Leftists continue the family tradition) the “nature of the game hasn’t changed for a century if not more.

    And again, history keeps proving them wrong time and time again. They were wrong about Reagan causing WWIII. History proved them wrong on the Cold War. And you see this happen time and time again, but for some reason the Left never seem to be effected by this. They never seem to lose credibility despite the fact they are always proven wrong in the end.

    So, yeah, a song about all the evils the left has been responsible for from Stalin, from the Cold War, up to the Present day would be great. The sad thing that despite all this history to look at and despite the fact that the core behavior of the Left really has remained constant over the years, still too many out there are puzzled by “the nature of their game”.

    So, yeah I hope someday someone will write the lyrics to “No sympathy for a Liberal”.

    Just as every cop is a criminal (how the Left perceives the police even at one point calling them pigs)

    And all the sinners saints (they uphold some of the greatest dirtbags as celebrities, as role models)

    As heads is tails (Leftist ideology turns reality upside down)

    Just call me Liberal

    cause I’m in need of some restraint (for the sake of the future of our society we need to restrain Leftist ideology)

  18. Who is John Locke?

    What is BDSM? What does that have to do with Thomas Paine?

    How did both those guys get into this debate?

    Why is Kevin so angry?

  19. RBN

    John Locke wrote “Two Treatises Of Government”.

    You are so ignorant.

    And I bet a loon too. Of the power crazy variety.

  20. RBN,
    I think I can help you out with some of your questions.
    1. What is BDSM?
    a lot of information is available on the internet.
    2. What does it have to do with Thomas Paine?
    I’m sure it is a play on the word “pain”
    3. Why is Kevin so angry?
    Accusing someone of feelings like “hate” (a Medved favorite) or “anger” is a frequent refuge of the left, when pinned down, and had something they’ve done or said shown to be reprehensible. When the Clintons were being exposed as unprincipled Communist Felons their reaction was, “You’re angry and full of hate.” You’re doing the same thing. Kevin may well be angry, but you can’t establish that with his words. You may have been angry when you called Ron Paul a “loon” but we just pointed out that you were wrong. Your emotional state is a non-starter.
    4. What do you mean “power crazy variety”?
    A “variety” is a specific type or category among a larger subdivided group. “Crazy,” in this context, clearly means “obsessed” with, or “overly concerned” with something. And “power,” in this context, suggests that you are in the category of those who are more concerned with winning in politics than in the outcomes resulting from the ascendency of that power (presumably through chosen candidates) or in the consequences, in public policy, of the actions of the candidates thus supported.

  21. Who is RBN? I am a devoted republican PCO, who is committed to practical conservative causes. I abhor hyperbole, on both sides. I believe a lot of what you state, but I also believe you are intolerant of those who veer from your (what seems to me) over the top attack dog on your perceived enemies. Your sarcastic response to my questions of Kevin’s silly personal attacks on me are a perfect example. Just because I am not immediately familiar with crude acronyms ( I did look up BDSM) does not make me ignorant. I found it interesting that I am suppose to know those type of details, to, not be called ignorant. I admit, I should have known John Locke, but please, a gentle reminder versus a vile attack on me is unwarranted.

  22. RBN,
    You have spent enough time commenting at TRW that I have gradually begun to recognize some actual conservative-leaning sincerety. But most of your behavior, here, has been of the attack-dog variety, frequently centered around name-calling, unconnected with any rational discourse.
    Just going back a few posts, on 9/26/07 you said I was irrational or simple minded and spewing venom . On 9/30/07 you said I was a fool with extreme idelogy engaging in twisting of facts. You would never specify anything that could be weighed on merit. It was just name calling. On 11/1/07 you asked one of our writers, “ …aren’t you the same guy who thinks the landing on the moon was staged, and believes you are being followed by government agents in black helicopters?” All of that is pure villification and you don’t feel any obligation to back up any of it with facts or reason. It is just schoolyard-potty-mouth.

    In this thread you came to make Ron Paul seem crazy, simple-minded or deranged by unsupported, derisive name calling. Now you complain that people aren’t treating you with respect. (!)

    Try walking into a student union building or a bar or the lobby of a hotel and start hitting people. I bet pretty soon someone will hit you back. Depending on the place and time someone might really deck you and you’ll deserve it. That’s what happens here. You complain of “vile attacks,” but you always initiate the vile attacks. You started this one by name calling: “Loon.”

  23. I will respond to your unfair characterizations about me soon (you apparently are so hard core, you can not recognize sacarasm, and humor) As the great Bill Murray once stated “lighten up Francis!”

    But there is no doubt, that my comment on Paul being a loon is the accurate. He is a nut job, and you yourself allude to this, when your posting agree with my premise, his foreign policy is mistaken. You may believe it is a simple disagreement, but I believe his stance is incredibly dangerous, naive, and foolhardy. Regardless of his other positions, it just takes 1 mistake (with regard to his loony and irrational stance on isolation) that would doom the United States of America, which most certainly is loony, if not insane. If you are to defend Ron Paul, then I must conclude you agree with his delusional view, and that my friend is scary, and would fly against any rational that Ron Reagan would ever believe in.

  24. Certainly it is unfortunate that your habit of calling people, with whom you disagree, “crazy, hateful and simple-minded” has been misunderstood… so frequently.
    Obviously, you were being humorous and sarcastic… uh… except when you weren’t… as appears to be the case if I take your most recent post seriously… which, perhaps I shoudn’t.
    Your accusations of me have been at least as numerous as those of Ron Paul, so we need some means of flagging and, thereby recognizing your humorous and sarcastic posts… unless you’re actually joking about Paul… still… and I missed it…again.

  25. Let me give you a hand;

    Black helicoptors, naked statue of David, humerous

    Ron Paul, your intolerance, and sometimes hateful attacks on people, you disagree with – dead serious,

  26. RBN would have been one of those “Republicans” who voted against Reagan in 1980 for fear he would start WWIII.

    Oh, perhaps RBN doesn’t think he would be looking at it from hindsight. But as someone who was around back then hearing people call Reagan and his supporters loons and how it would just take “one mistake” for a nuclear war to start, I am pretty sure that RBN would have been totally against Reagan.

    After all, why go as far as calling the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire”? Why provoke them like that? And while Reagan might think saying “the bombing starts in three minutes” while testing out a microphone is a joke, the end of civilization as we know it just doesn’t strike me as funny. Or so RBN would have said back then. He wouldn’t have gotten it then as he doesn’t get it now.

  27. Kevin, please re read, my comments were about Paul, nothing about Reagan.

    If fact, I did vote for Reagan, and it is his forieng policy that gets my support, not Ron Paul.

    If fact, one of my favorite quotes is Reagan’s repsose to the media questining his overall strategy when dealing with USSR “we win, they lose”

    My concern with Paul is, “we stay home, they win”

  28. His overall strategy when dealing with USSR “we win, they lose”

    Isn’t that the kind of statement that leads to hostility?

    Best to vote for Anderson. He isn’t a loon as Reagan and his supporters. He won’t start WWIII like Reagan will.

    Look I was around in 1979. That’s what Leftist Republicans were saying. It was George Bush, Sr. who invented the term Voodoo Economics to describe Reagan’s economic programs.

    Yes, history proved them wrong. Absolutely wrong. Just like history will someday prove you wrong.

    I find it interesting how all the Leftist Republicans who hated Reagan now sing his praises. Of course they don’t really mean it. But it just shows how hypocritical they are.

  29. Your comments and your sentimetality are very confusing Kevin. Are you blasting Ron Reagan, or are you in agreement with what he said at the time (as I did back then?)

    Are you calling me a leftist republican because I fear a Ron Paul presidency? For your refererence, I proudly voted for RR, agreed with his forieng policy, and consider myself a conservative Republican, with some pragnatism.

    Not sure what your refence to Voodoo econmics has to do with this debate, (not meant to be sarcastic), but let me know.

    You and Doug seem to latch on to my calling Ron Paul a loon, so let me rephrase; I believe his naive postions on our milatary, and Iraq efforts are very dangersous to US interests and lives. It is that reason I oppose him, and label him “a loon”

  30. RBN,
    You disagree with Ron Paul, as you do with other Republicans, on policy, but attempt to paint those disagreements as emotional disturbances or mental deficiencies on the part of those with whom you disagree.

    Very often, you give no argument for your side, sometimes don’t even state what it is(!), but merely allege the personal insults as if they had validity or some basis in reason. Frequently those personal attacks mirror similar personal attacks being made by leftists elsewhere as lying propaganda. It suggests that’s where you got the idea. Yes, that was a constant technique against Reagan.

    When challenged to back up the more personal side of your attacks, you retreat to simply defending the policy disagreement, itself, as if being right on your actual issue could somehow justify the personal attack.

    It doesn’t.

  31. You miss the point entirely, ignoring what was just said, in order to paint your own scrulious attack on me. How much more plainly does it need to be said about the ratinale of my description of Ron Paul?

    Let me try again, try to follow closely; He is a nut job, loon, et al, not because of a simply disagreement on policy, but instead, he stance is on Iraq, foreing policty, ect is horrifically dangerous. That is it Doug. You youself need to stop using the tactics of the left, to slur me by ignoring what has been said numerous times.

  32. Wrong, again, Rbbn. I did not claim you had not tried to defend your Ron Paul slur, rather I accounted for it. Here, let me help you:
    I said, “When challenged to back up the more personal side of your attacks, you retreat to simply defending the policy disagreement, itself…” Far from “ignoring the point” or “ignoring what was said” it fully accounts for your action. Assuming that Paul’s foreign policy is a danger to America, it does not even begin to account for your accusation of his “mental” deficiency. Nor your implication that he is a racist or a fascist. Nor your accusation that I am “intolerant.” I have yet to see any definition of the word “loon” that says anything about foreign policy, good, bad or indifferent.

    Let’s compare mental capability. Ron Paul is a graduate of medical school with decades of medical practice and 19 years in the U.S. congress. You didn’t know who John Locke is. How many college degrees do you have? How many times have you been elected to national office? What is the definition of the word “ignorant?” How many times have people sent you a million dollars online? What’s your IQ?
    Let’s make it even easier. How do you spell the following words?
    Is it:
    “scrulious” or “scurrilous”?
    “ratinale” or “rationale”?
    “foreing policty” or “foreign policy”?

  33. “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
    -Ronald Reagan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s