HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Romney Stars in Ad For Ca...

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:19 AM

Romney Stars in Ad For Candidate Who Says Medicare And Social Security Are Unconstitutional

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by OKNancy (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Think Progress

For the first time this election, Mitt Romney is starring in a campaign ad on behalf of another Republican candidate. Romney’s candidate of choice is none other than Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party favorite in a tight race for a Senate seat, who says things like Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.

Romney has stumped for Mourdock before, saying “This is a man that I want to see in Washington” to “actually have the votes to get things changed.”

* * *
What Romney does not mention here is Mourdock’s opposition to the very idea of a social safety net for seniors. Video of Mourdock shows the candidate mocking these programs, saying, “I challenge you to find words that talk about “Medicare” or “Medicaid” or, yes, even “Social Security.” Mourdock’s other statements include allowing businesses to deny insurance to Americans with pre-existing positions and abolishing Senate elections.

Mourdock is not the only extreme candidate Romney has embraced. Rep. Steve King (R-IA), with his anti-immigrant, birther, pro-dog-fighting record, earned a coveted endorsement when Romney said “I want him as my partner in Washington, D.C.”


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/22/1059121/romney-mourdock/



It is notable that Romney is so strongly embracing some of the more extreme candidates in his party.

7 replies, 2301 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Romney Stars in Ad For Candidate Who Says Medicare And Social Security Are Unconstitutional (Original post)
TomCADem Oct 2012 OP
beac Oct 2012 #1
Suji to Seoul Oct 2012 #2
freshwest Oct 2012 #5
viguy007 Oct 2012 #3
patrice Oct 2012 #4
Politicalboi Oct 2012 #6
OKNancy Oct 2012 #7

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:25 AM

1. The ONLY Senate candidate Mittens has done an ad for wants to kill your grandma and make

you have your rapist's baby.

He freely endorses others who are FAR to the right of mainstream America while claiming to be a "moderate" himself.

How is this not GAME OVER???

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:33 AM

2. Because he is a Republican and who controls the M$M. Republicans.

Game is not over until all votes are counted, verified and there is a paper trail.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:34 AM

5. +1. And the M$M manufactures consent for all that the GOP does. Always.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:01 AM

3. {s there a video of Murdock saying this

 

Add this to the ad about rape and play it in FL, kill two birds with one stone. How extreme do you have to be to lose Romney's endorsement.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 01:30 AM

4. Dog-eat-dog is not even a slight exaggeration. The thing that Republicans refuse to recognize

the things that are an error, in Laissez Faire Capitalism or Ayn Randian Objectivism or so-called Free Markets or whatever the current buzz words are, . . . the mistake of it all is that it isn't really necessarily the "fittest"/best that survive.

Their justification for ending Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Public Education, Peace, is that the challenges of living in that world will eliminate those who are not good enough to make it and what you will have left are those who are SUPPOSED to survive because they are the "best". Even if you accept a possibility of that principle as a worthy goal, it doesn't actually work that way, because what is selected out of such systems isn't necessarily the creative potential referred to in the axiom "necessity is the mother of invention." What is selected out of "survival of the fittest" isn't NECESSARILY what you need in order to survive, because the limitation of all values in such system introduces biases that enslave/limit what can develop out of them, that is, limit potential for development in ways that cause all systems to LOSE value that could be not only useful but also NEEDED.

The struggle for the fundamentals of survival, without any value standard other than to survive, selects the most ruthless and that exclusion of all other value standards results in the loss of practically infinite Real Value potentials for productivity, potential Real Value that COULD affect the ability to survive. Potentials that could meet as yet unrecognized and practically new needs, for which there are no existing resources, are not conserved in systems that are based on survival values and nothing else. You don't always know what you're going to need to survive, so if you limit potential you can lose values that you may need.

Even if such systems do develop secondary and other levels of emergent values, those standards will always be limited by, depend for their very existence upon, the primary, most fundamental value in the basic system, survival in the face of no-holds barred, dog-eat-dog competition for survival.

And that limitation on secondary and other more extrapolated values and standards in the systems, once again, can result in the loss of still other values that don't appear to meet the criteria of the fundamental value, survival. And no one knows what real values are lost until it becomes apparent that there is a need that cannot be met. And that need can't be met, because no one knew what they didn't know, since everything that they did know was defined by the single most fundamental value in all systems, survival in an otherwise value-less system, survival in the face of no-holds barred competition for survival. Without other values to motivate knowledge, no one knows that they don't know until some third thing makes it apparent that they don't know, AFTER the fact.

It's a mono-culture; it does not work. Needs are assumed to be of one type, therefore value is of a single fundamental type and the whole thing breaks when challenged by anything that does not fit those predetermined types. What Republicans are proposing to do is to dispose of more value in the face of challenge. This limitation/exclusion of the development of knowledge and resources IS NOT CONSERVATIVE.

This is just one of the reasons that I am deeply happy to hear our President talk about investing in, protecting, and maintaining BASIC RESEARCH.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:56 AM

6. Isn't Ryan one of those too?

I think Ryan and Dick MourDick are the same on both abortion and Medicare and SSI.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:21 AM

7. Article is dated 10-22

exceeds the LBN 12 hour rule... sorry

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink