Why I refuse to vote for BHO

[Gxg (G²)]

It would be very difficult for a pro-abortion candidate to win the Republican nomination for the presidency.

Happened with Romney sadly....and it always (IMHO) seems extremly problematic that people who call themselves pro-life support him and often seem sluggish in doing a little homework on his history alone (which matches President Obama in many cases). Here are a few documents and can verify the dates..as it was all after he claimed to be pro-life.

• Romney signs bill on family planning - The Boston Globe
• Session Laws: CHAPTER 91 of the Acts of 2005
• https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector
• Romney's Pro-Life Conversion: Myth or Reality? - ABC News
• Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law - The Boston Globe
• Rhetoric vs. Record - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online
• Fact Checker - Romney's 'Flip, Flop, Flip'
• Session Laws: CHAPTER 58 of the Acts of 2006
• The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Thompson Pounces
• Planned Parenthood clinic funds OK'd under Romney - The Boston Globe

Romney has an extensive history of changing his position to fit moods/get power more often than some people change underwear....which is one of the reasons why many Republicans who are against President Obama don't even trust him since he appears to be nothing more than a political opportunist, and now he's trying to woo others seeking to deny it/often seeming too unwilling to bother themselves about looking at his actual record. No truly pro-live voter can afford to take him seriously in light of his actions:

• He ran for Senator in Massachusetts as pro-choice in 1994.
• Claimed he wasn't pro-choice in 2001.
• Ran for Senator as pro-choice again in 2002.
• Claimed he was pro-life in 2004.
• Publicly supported pro-choice abortion laws, nominated an openly pro-choice Judge, and demanded Catholic hospitals to provide chemical abortifacients in 2005.
• Gave a permanent seat on the health payment policy advisory board to Planned Parenthood, and gave them a 5 BILLION dollar tax-exempt bond in 2006.


• Claimed that he supported a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 2007.
• Then he rejected the same in 2011.
​

Following Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) comments about “legitimate rape,” the Romney campaign issued a statement claiming that it will support abortion in cases of rape and incest. The policy undermined Paul Ryan’s longstanding opposition to abortion services and set Romney apart from the views of most Republican lawmakers. The former Massachusetts governor emphasized his differences with the GOP platform position on abortion, which embraces a pro-life position without exceptions, during a CBS interview at a campaign stop in Michigan. The candidate said the abortion issue does not belong in the political arena and is a question for the courts and He also gave funding to Planned Parenthood for abortion multiple times and still does.

That all goes directly in line with the history of Romney in how he has consistently supported ABORTION many times and already had laws set in place to ensure its survival...it's interesting to see others not aware of his record.

Romney Fairy Tale Abortion​

As said best by the Pro-Life Organization "Bound for Life" --in their review entitled Federal documents show Romney tied to company that disposes of aborted babies | Bound4LIFE:

A medical waste company, Stericycle is infamous for its willingness to go to various abortion centers and pick up the remains of aborted babies and dispose of them as medical waste. Federal documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission show the dates in which Romney reports being connected with his investment company don’t match up with the dates in which he was listed as being involved with a large investment in Stericycle, which leads us to ask if he was connected with Stericycle at times they were disposing of aborted fetuses. The document from November 22, 1999, reports, “W. Mitt Romney (“Mr. Romney”) is the sole stockholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and President of BCI VI Inc,” (SEC FORM SC 13D) in the Stericycle investment.

That means Romney was an active member of the firm when the $75 million investment was made in Stericycle. Stericylce isn’t just a medical waste business that is above board. As recently as last year, Stericylce was cited for improper disposal of fetuses in Texas. For a quick rundown of some news articles about Stericycle’s seedy history, click here. You will find a list of fines, truck leasing companies breaking contracts with them because of their fetus disposal business, and other serious controversies that the pro-life candidate must distance himself from by addressing these issues and either showing us proof there was no abortion activity back then or publicly addressing the wrongdoing and breaking his tie with them in keeping with his pro-life conversion, rather than simply misleading the American people about the dates he was there.

It’s a concern if Romney actually was the “sole shareholder” as the SEC documents say, unquestionably say he was. You can read the filings from the SEC documents here and here. (Simply do a search within them for the name “Romney” and it will show you the relevant shareholder information.)

This information clearly contradicts what the Romney camp reported publicly in January. That is unacceptable and raises a serious issue for pro-lifers who have embraced him as a pro-life candidate. There are too many unanswered questions to let this issue be a non-issue in this race. The man running on a pro-life platform actually was the “sole shareholder” in a company that made a $75 million investment in a company that has for an indeterminate amount of time profited directly from from the shedding of innocent blood. Their work helps polluted the land with bloodshed, putting fetuses in incinerators and waste areas. Stericycle is evasive in its responses to those who question its abortion business, claiming that abortion is only a “small portion” of its business, which is only true on a technicality. There are only a few hundred abortion centers in the nation and many more medical facilities that need waste services; however, Stericycle is the largest provider of disposing of fetal remains. Stop Stericycle.com reports:

Aside from the fact that we have recorded phone calls of Stericycle’s own representatives admitting that they accept fetal remains, many people are confused about Stericycle’s waste acceptance policy. The vaguely worded policy does not mention fetal remains, but rather craftily states that “complete human remains” are unacceptable. Stericycle has told the Campaign to Stop Stericycle (CSS) that it does not know when a fetus is considered to be human, and that the determination is up to the abortion mill and state law. Obviously, abortion mills never admit that aborted babies are human.

Additionally, during an undercover investigation, the Campaign to Stop Stericycle obtained a hypothetical contract for an abortion mill in which the pickup of fetal remains was included. CSS was also informed that the abortion mill would receive “incinerate only” stickers so that the fetal remains would be incinerated.

Furthermore, Stericycle is currently under government investigation in the state of Texas for illegally dumping aborted fetuses into a municipal landfill. During the initial investigation, Stericycle representatives told the government that “medical waste containing fetuses or tissue should be sent for incineration,” and that aborted fetuses in Texas should be transported to Stericycle’s plant in Apopka, Florida to be incinerated.
​

Because of such a clear controversy of pro-life issues, and the reports which show that the Romney’s investment firm ultimately profited $49.5 million from the Stericycle investment.

There are two important questions we must address:

First, we do not have any evidence that the aborted fetal remains pick-ups began after Romney left the firm. Records like this are not easily available unless one knows what he is seeking exactly. StopStericycle.com has records from 2003, which is after Romney left, but until Stericycle or Romney can provide evidence that Stericycle’s suddenly started its business with fetuses after Romney sold his investment, we can’t conclusively be satisfied that was the case.

Second, Romney claims a pro-life conversion, though he does allows for exceptions in certain cases. He must address his relationship with the abortion profiteer. Even if some evidence exists showing perhaps it was after he sold his investment, Stericycle began this practice, Romney needs to address this to pro-lifers because he is running on a pro-life platform but is tied in some ways to a business linked to abortion since clearly the dates of his involvement were not as he reported.

We are a nation that endorses and sanctions the shedding of innocent blood, and we must draw a clear and bold line in the pro-life community that doesn’t allow for a blur that might have occurred in the name of business.

Romney cannot remain silent on this issue. After the inconsistencies about the dates, we know, it’s not enough to assume a conclusion that they didn’t pick up fetuses then.

According to Stericycle, “We became a publicly traded company in 1996, and emerged as North America’s largest provider of medical waste services in 2000.




​

Many RIGHT-Wing (both Religious and Non-Religious) had noted the same thing for a long time. Bound4Life, in example, is one of them amongst many refusing to cover up for Romney. He has not spoken out against Stericyle in it actions/claimed he'll never be for abortion again and will fight against it. The SEC documents note unquestionably that he was ...and as said before, one can read the filings from the SEC documents here and here. ..or simply do a search within them for the name “Romney” and it will show you the relevant shareholder information.

I don't like what President Obama is for, but neither do I really think Romney is any better...as with President Obama, at least he's outright in where he stands on the issue. Of course, in his words, what has often come up is that he's not Pro-Abortion as much as he's Pro-Choice---and I don't agree with his funding of Planned Parenthood when it comes to abortion. Nonetheless, I get where he was coming from as it concerns seeking to reduce abortion drastically ( more here and here ).

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency
Obama on Abortion​

 

[stamperben]

Deregulation is a good thing. It gives businesses more choices...it doesn't become a bad thing until the government start trying to help (bailout) the businesses that make bad choices.

Yes, let's deregulate coal plants, oil refineries and the like, and get rid of agencies like the EPA, FDA and OSHA to boot! I can't wait to live in a country that sees revisionist policies as good for its people instead of business.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If Barack Obama had an R next to his name, all "Progressives" would hate him and all "conservatives" would love him.

Agreed...as it often seems that the switching of language is often utilized to get people to support others in their campaigns..and that has been the case often whenever people say all things done in the name of "CONSERVATIVES" are automatically different than all things done in the name of "PROGRESSIVES" even when they often overlap and seem identical.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, let's deregulate coal plants, oil refineries and the like, and get rid of agencies like the EPA, FDA and OSHA to boot! I can't wait to live in a country that sees revisionist policies as good for its people instead of business.
[/sarcasm]

While I agree there have to be some rules in terms of public safety, I want to avoid over-regulation which is what we have today which is where a government tells a business owner how much they have to pay their employees, what kind of employees they have to hire, and how they have to run their business, and which benefits they have to offer.

 

[stamperben]

While I agree there have to be some rules in terms of public safety, I want to avoid over-regulation which is what we have today which is where a government tells a business owner how much they have to pay their employees, what kind of employees they have to hire, and how they have to run their business, and which benefits they have to offer.

Oh noes! A minimum wage? Affirmative action?

Since when would the government set hours? And benefits? Do you know that in the low pay world that many are totally without benefits?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh noes! A minimum wage? Affirmative action?

Since when would the government set hours? And benefits? Do you know that in the low pay world that many are totally without benefits?

Oh, sorry...if they don't provide benefits, then they have to pay a fine to the federal government so they get hit one way or the other.

As far as affirmative action hiring quotas, I'm not ashamed to say that it's a joke...any self-respecting minority would tell you the same thing. First, it's running the risk of not getting the best person for the job. When you hire some one, it should be the most qualified, not "well...this guy's good, but I need 2 more of column A and one more of column B". Second, what would that do to the morale of an affirmative action hire to know that the only reason they have their job is because the government made their boss hire them. If the boss is a racist, it's still going to be a miserable experience for the employee.

Minimum wage...also not needed. The market will decide what a job is worth....just like it does for almost every other job.

From BLS:
3.8 million workers with wages at the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

If the "evil corporatocracy" really was just out to screw everyone and the only pay restraint they have to adhere to is minimum wage, why do 94% of American workers make more than mininum wage?

I work for an IT outfit, even the brand new guys right out of college make 3x the mininum wage, there's no law stating they have to pay them that, so why does the company pay them that?...because a developer adds enough value to a company that they can demand more money and get it. If their job could be performed by a 14 year old (like 99% of the minimum wage jobs out there), then they wouldn't be able to do it.

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh noes! A minimum wage?

Which is proven to increase costs thereby negating the forced increase. Oh, and we keep missing the point that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant for people for their first jobs.

Affirmative action?

Yes, let's not get the most qualified person, let's just get someone because of quota...

Since when would the government set hours?

The 40 hour work week.

And benefits? Do you know that in the low pay world that many are totally without benefits?

Then they should be actively searching for a job that does offer benefits. That's the problem, we've gone from a nation of people determined to better themselves to a nation of people determined that someone else should do it for them...

 

[stamperben]

Oh, sorry...if they don't provide benefits, then they have to pay a fine to the federal government so they get hit one way or the other.

As far as affirmative action hiring quotas, I'm not ashamed to say that it's a joke...any self-respecting minority would tell you the same thing. First, it's running the risk of not getting the best person for the job. When you hire some one, it should be the most qualified, not "well...this guy's good, but I need 2 more of column A and one more of column B". Second, what would that do to the morale of an affirmative action hire to know that the only reason they have their job is because the government made their boss hire them. If the boss is a racist, it's still going to be a miserable experience for the employee.

Minimum wage...also not needed. The market will decide what a job is worth....just like it does for almost every other job.

From BLS:
3.8 million workers with wages at the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

If the "evil corporatocracy" really was just out to screw everyone and the only pay restraint they have to adhere to is minimum wage, why do 94% of American workers make more than mininum wage?

I work for an IT outfit, even the brand new guys right out of college make 3x the mininum wage, there's no law stating they have to pay them that, so why does the company pay them that?...because a developer adds enough value to a company that they can demand more money and get it. If their job could be performed by a 14 year old (like 99% of the minimum wage jobs out there), then they wouldn't be able to do it.

What benefits, what fines?

Do you deny that racial and gender discrimination has been prevalent in the past necessitating the need for affirmative action? That law is in place for a reason even if you can't see it.

Minimum wage not needed... Minimum wage jobs on the level of a 14 year old... Wow. It must be a very different view from that $90k gig you got. But I'll admit the "market" does decide the pay for your line of work. However if 94.8% of the workforce were to have your skills you would not have such a lofty view of a minimum wage as the compitition would be rather fierce don't ya think?

 

[stamperben]

Which is proven to increase costs thereby negating the forced increase. Oh, and we keep missing the point that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant for people for their first jobs.
Source? If needed I could provide study after study that shows the minimum wage and even increases in it have no bearing on increased costs. And tell the poor soul trying to feed his family who is forced to take that job because THEY ARE THE ONLY JOBS AVAILABLE!

Yes, let's not get the most qualified person, let's just get someone because of quota...
...and let's make sure that person is "one of us", right?

The 40 hour work week.
Oh noes... That pesky regulation that mandates you can't work someone 16 hours a day seven days a week without some sort of premium compensation!


Then they should be actively searching for a job that does offer benefits. That's the problem, we've gone from a nation of people determined to better themselves to a nation of people determined that someone else should do it for them...
I'm more than sure folks are constantly searching for something better. But where's the education to come from for someone to better themselves? Who provides it? Mom and Dad who can barely make the mortgage let alone pay for school? Or maybe we should take Romney's advice and ask the parents to fund the startup costs for a business? Can't you see how ludicrous that is?

No, upon thinking on it I bet you can't.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What benefits, what fines?

PPACA includes numerous provisions to take effect over several years beginning in 2010. Policies issued before particular provisions take effect are grandfathered from many of these provisions, while other provisions may affect existing policies.

• A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[17][18] requires that all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service
• Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care.

Do you deny that racial and gender discrimination has been prevalent in the past necessitating the need for affirmative action? That law is in place for a reason even if you can't see it.

There was a good reason for outlawing the burning of potential witches in Salem years ago too...what's your point?

This isn't the 50's and 60's anymore.

Minimum wage not needed... Minimum wage jobs on the level of a 14 year old... Wow. It must be a very different view from that $90k gig you got. But I'll admit the "market" does decide the pay for your line of work. However if 94.8% of the workforce were to have your skills you would not have such a lofty view of a minimum wage as the compitition would be rather fierce don't ya think?

If 94.8% of the market had my skillset, then yeah, it wouldn't be worth as much since the rarity of the skillset adds value. However, there are skillsets that are easy to pick up (like pushing a broom, kids as young as 7 years old could be taught to sweep), and harder skillsets like that of performing heart surgery (which a 7 year old would not be able to learn in 3 hours).

Also, the harder the skillset is to pick up, the fewer the people that are going to have the drive to stick with it...thus making it more rare.

 

[SharonL]

I have turned off the TV and made a new declaration today. I will join in with the 40 days of Prayer for our nation. If the nation prays, God promised he would heal our land. If after we pray and things are not done to protect our nation - we have to know that in these end times, it is God's Will. We need to pray for guidance, wisdom and patience. Our country is so split that only God can heal it.

 

[stamperben]

PPACA includes numerous provisions to take effect over several years beginning in 2010. Policies issued before particular provisions take effect are grandfathered from many of these provisions, while other provisions may affect existing policies.

[*]A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[17][18] requires that all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service
[*]Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health

That's all you got? Romney's plan for MA? LOL

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's all you got? Romney's plan for MA? LOL

PPACA which I was referring to...
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),commonly called Obamacare (or the federal health care law), is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

What do you mean "That's all you got"?

I said that under Obama's healthcare regulations, employers have to offer benefits or a pay a fine.

You said "What benefits? What fines?"


I provide a source answering your question 100%

What Benefits?
Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance

What fines?
...will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health


...and the best you could come up with is a snarky reply implying that my response was lacking.

I provided exactly what you asked for...what?...no valid rebuttal?

 

[stamperben]

PPACA which I was referring to...
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),commonly called Obamacare (or the federal health care law), is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

What do you mean "That's all you got"?

I said that under Obama's healthcare regulations, employers have to offer benefits or a pay a fine.

You said "What benefits? What fines?"

I provide a source answering your question 100%

What Benefits?
Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance

What fines?
...will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health

...and the best you could come up with is a snarky reply implying that my response was lacking.

I provided exactly what you asked for...what?...no valid rebuttal?

Yeah, Romney's plan, actually Heritage Foundation's plan on a national scale. What else you got in the way of benefits and fines?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, Romney's plan, actually Heritage Foundation's plan on a national scale. What else you got in the way of benefits and fines?

what?...no valid rebuttal?

No..., so I'm just going to put the negative attention back on Romney and ask for more examples of the fines so I don't have to provide a valid answer

...there...fixed LOL

...but in all seriousness, there are some key differences in Romneycare and Obamacare.

You must be too busy to get the data so no worries, I'll take care of the research for you...

RomneyCare:
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No new individual taxes
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)

ObamaCare:
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown

There's nothing else to explain in the way of benefits and fines so I'm not sure why you're asking "what else?". I told you the benefit that was required (and sourced it) and provided info on the fine for those who didn't (and sourced it)

So, do you actually have a valid rebuttal or are you just planning to do you usual tactic of annoying your opposition until they stop replying and claim it as a win for the left?

 

[stamperben]

Okay, I asked for benefits and fines and you gave me the ACA. Different but basically a copy of what the the Heritage Foundation drew up years ago. So yes, it is a benefit with fines for non compliance. You gave what I asked for. Is that all you got as far as government regulated benefits and fines associated with them?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Okay, I asked for benefits and fines and you gave me the ACA. Different but basically a copy of what the the Heritage Foundation drew up years ago. So yes, it is a benefit with fines for non compliance. You gave what I asked for. Is that all you got as far as government regulated benefits and fines associated with them?

So we touched on the following:
PPACA
Minimum Wage
Affirmative Action Quotas

Those are the most infringing and publicly visible

There are several other regulations that are damaging to businesses
Overhaul of unnecessary government regulations could save businesses $1 billion | masslive.com

Obama Administration Over-Regulating Farms Out of Business - Susan Brown - [page]

http://www.freeenterprise.com/2011/07/help-the-cement-industry-from-being-regulated-out-of-business/

...look at how waste management is handled with some locations having forced recycling procedures
http://cortezmeow.hubpages.com/hub/The-truth-about-recycling

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

So we touched on the following:
PPACA
Minimum Wage
Affirmative Action Quotas

Those are the most infringing and publicly visible

And adding to that, from Forbes:

"The go-slow strategy of the Department of Interior is joined by Obama policy elsewhere. The President pays lip service to the massive economic benefits stemming from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking&#8221 in hydrocarbon extraction. Yet he pushes for new federal safety standards guaranteed to delay new fracturing projects and leave natural gas firms with large compliance costs."

And to the point in my signature "Vote For Obama" Sign, from the same Forbes article:

"All told, Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy is really a “all of our regulation” policy. It is a “hurt the best, bail out the worst” redistributionist policy. Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” has some peculiar offspring."


Source: Obama's Smokescreen Obscures Smart Energy Policies - Forbes

 

[stamperben]

So we touched on the following:
PPACA
Minimum Wage
Affirmative Action Quotas

Those are the most infringing and publicly visible

There are several other regulations that are damaging to businesses
Overhaul of unnecessary government regulations could save businesses $1 billion | masslive.com

Obama Administration Over-Regulating Farms Out of Business - Susan Brown - [page]

Help the Cement Industry from Being Regulated Out of Business | Free Enterprise

...look at how waste management is handled with some locations having forced recycling procedures
http://cortezmeow.hubpages.com/hub/The-truth-about-recycling

Do I agreed that regulating where cows go poop is necessary? No, but I do think that keeping the nation's waters clean is.

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this matter. We can go over every government regulation that there is and argue their merits, but that doesn't change my mind that one of the reasons I am not voting for Romney is that I fear programs and laws that I see as protecting the American people would be trashed.

Couldn't open the link you provided on recycling, but I think my area is backwards in that matter. Why would I want recyclable material to end up in a landfill when it can be used again? Why would anyone? Oh, unless it gets in the way of profits for a few. Can't forget the almighty profit motive...

 

[DaisyDay]

Happened with Romney sadly....and it always (IMHO) seems extremly problematic that people who call themselves pro-life support him and often seem sluggish in doing a little homework on his history alone (which matches President Obama in many cases). Here are a few documents and can verify the dates..as it was all after he claimed to be pro-life.
*** snip facts and analysis ***

Yeah, but since he's what they have to cling to, they got to ignore all that and hope that Ryan's view have become Romney's views.