Willard Rmoney's first name should be Janus.
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
"...Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with...."
I'm beginning to believe video exists demonstrating that Willard has taken at least both sides of EVERY political issue there is, important or trivial. Of course he is famous for switching his viewpoint on some issues within one day, not to mention switching his position three to five times within three to five months on some issues.
It's not that Obama is such a great guy and that anyone should be that hot to vote for him, but he does seem to have some moral convictions and core values. Even if one disagrees with Obama on some particular issue at least you can know WHY you do.
Obama is the rock of Gibraltar in comparison to Rmoney. SNL's skit about Rmoney is hardly an exaggeration. At this point Rmoney is unlampoonable.
E.g., if Rmoney visits a turkey farm tomorrow one will not in the least be surprised if he swears that turkey is his favorite food of all, and that one of the major reasons he is running for POTUS is to insure the rights and abilities of turkey farmers to produce turkeys to what ever degree they can or wish. Then he will declare he wishes he was a turkey so that he could have sex with turkeys and not get arrested.
And that same day, when he appears at the National Vegan Assn.'s meeting, Rmoney will swear he never eats meat or any form of animal protein, and believes the eating of meat, especially turkey, should be outlawed.
I don't think Willard has opinions, and certainly not convictions - he just says what he thinks will be popular, at whatever place and time he happens to be.
#1: It's not that Obama is such a great guy and that anyone should be that hot to vote for him, but he does seem to have some moral convictions and core values.
Back on the "lesser of two evils" bandwagon again?
As for flip-flopping, how about flip-flopping voters? When it was Bush who "means what sez!" this kind of argument wouldn't have held water in Democratic circles. Now it's the other way around. I think the lack of objective reasons encourages people to latch onto those less material personal qualities than can't be objectively assessed. Hope and Change are now reduced to "Can I see myself having a beer or a drum circle with them?" Democrat or Republican, this is why they say that history rhymes.
Honestly, I'd rather throw my vote away than choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Now that's the least evil option availble.
Romney most certainly does have beliefs and convictions.
He wants to be President of the United States; I haven't noticed any wavering on THAT issue at all. Everything else is secondary.
Vote for Alfred E. Neuman; you could do worse. (And always have.)
I'm one of those apparent math geniuses - as compared to others, apparently - that figured out long ago that one vote one way or the other doesn't make a damn.
BC, I, anyone reading these words, and/or even the man in the moon can all vote for Obama, or conversely for Rmoney, or either for some third party candidate, or all of us can just stay home and not vote at all.
Guess what? In every scenario, the winner and losers of the Presidential race will be the same.
a) Local elections do hinge on individual votes. And local election probably affect people more than national elections. (We have had elections up here, for state legislature, that hinged on three votes, and one was even tied. There was a coin toss to decide the winner.)
b) YOUR individual vote does not count, but aggregate votes do, and you vote is a part of the aggregate. (I bet there was more than one Democrat in 2000 who was wishing they did not vote for Nader.)
I'm sure there was more than one elderly Jewish person in Miami who wished he/she had not voted mistakenly for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore in 2000. And I am sure Nixon went to his grave convinced Mayor Daley of Chi-town stole Illinois's electoral votes from him in 1960. Such is life.
BTW, I'm aware that local elections can be decided by a handful or even one or two votes. I was speaking only of the Presidential race.
Because of the electoral college my vote is meaningless in the VERY red state in which I live, as would anyone's vote in a VERY blue state.
Only in the so-called purple states could a person get excited about voting for President, and then perhaps not that excited.
Well, of course, Rmoney has now flip-flopped on the tying-the-dog-to-the-roof-of-the-car issue.
And, once again, Rmoney is naively honest about his motivation for the flip-flop. It's not that he realizes now that he violated the laws against cruelty to animals, that he made a serious moral or ethical mistake, or that he is sincerely sorry about having done it - it’s just that in retrospect he would have not done it if he could have foreseen "the attention it's received."
Every day, in every way, I despise this emotionless living corpse more and more.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.