top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Mitt Romney For Governor Of Massachusetts

(not accepting new messages)
^               2412-2427 of 2427  2396-2411 >>
2427
Creepy StevePerson was signed in when posted
06-15-2003
11:54 AM ET (US)
This message board was an experiment in free form discussion without any moderation.

It think it proved to be a success.

I'm closing the board down now since I've found that I no longer visit the message board. It was exciting and informative while the campaign was running, but now has degenerated into insults, partisan posts, name calling.

Check out this web site for information on Mass reform:

http://www.massreform.com/

I think it has some intelligent things to say.
2426
Police get shaft?
06-07-2003
12:16 PM ET (US)
Liberals? What makes you think I'm a liberal? I think state gov't is too big, town gov't is over-funded, and the national gov't is too knee-jerk. Gov't is great if it does what it is supposed to do, but it more oftenthan not today does not.

Romney, however, said he was going to cut, and he did. Anyone who voted for the jerk and is now surprised at the cuts is a fool- and they shouldn't have voted in the first place.

By the way, I voted for O'Brien and would again for several reasons. 1) she is not a liberal - Romney's spin stuck. She is a moderate and is as against tax increases as Romney. 2) some gov't programs are necessary. I owuld increase library funding, but when everythign else is being cut, libraries are among the first top go. Romney is bad for libraries, as I knew he would be. 3) Romney and his 'team' are selfish, self-centered egotists who want a larger stage. They are using this office as a spingboard for higher office, which I find horrible. O'Brien would have stayed in the office. Romney wants to move up. I find that bad practice in dog catchers and school committees as well as governors.

I have no confidence in Romney. O'Brien knew state govt. She ran to be head of state gov't; Romney ran to make a name for himself.
2425
police shaft
06-06-2003
11:14 PM ET (US)
Shannon Obrien sure did have a lousy smile! But that is not why she lost. You Monday morning liberals never give up. Clinton never inhaled, I never had sex with that woman and Oh I'm sure if Obrien and Gore got elected we would all be in paradise. Get over it CLINTON HEAD................
2424
Police get shaft?
06-06-2003
05:26 PM ET (US)
Hey Police Supporter - you didn't know Romney would cut funding for local services?! He told you he would! What is wrong with you? You voted for Romney - now live with his policies. I don't hope you lose your job, but you can't be surprised if you do! He SAID he'd cut funding!

But Shannon O'Brien sure had a lousy smile, didn't she?!
2423
Accounting 101
06-06-2003
02:55 PM ET (US)
How come Mitt has decided to give the crying poor mouth, urban idiot, Mayor Meninno, more money than other cities and towns. The mayor of Boston has foolishly spent the fat bank roll he inherited from Ray Flynn and because of Mennino's incompetence and poor managment skills others will have to go without.
2422
Police Supporter
06-05-2003
11:52 PM ET (US)
If I had known when I helped Mitt get elected, that he would be giving my local Law Enforcers, Firemen, and schools the shaft, I would have voted for the Donkey to kick him in his A&#.
2421
Joe Q. Public
06-05-2003
01:38 PM ET (US)
I know this is off the topic, but does anyone else get angry that we pay about $500 a year to the cable company and we still have to watch commercials (movie channels not included )? Why don't advertisers pay our cable bill?

Kali, I think the heartless Republicans who visit this site have given up responding to common sense posts like yours.
2420
WEBMASTER
06-04-2003
02:11 PM ET (US)
THIS BOARD IS ENTIRELY UNAFFILIATED WITH GOVERNOR ROMNEY AND THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY NEITHER READS NOR RESPONDS TO ANYTHING POSTED ON THIS SITE.

TO REACH THE GOVERNOR, VISIT HIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE AT
http://www.mass.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=aghome&agid=gov
2419
Hey K Burke
06-04-2003
09:22 AM ET (US)
Hey Kali Burke: Nicely worded. Well said.

Here is something else that is well-worded (huh?) and well-said:

http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/
2418
Kali Blake
06-03-2003
04:39 PM ET (US)

What If It Were Your Parents?

Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, with his rather outspoken views of the handicapped and elderly,
is making it okay to discriminate against them.
He has openly said that he believes that the cutbacks on health insurance are justified because some of them have cable television.
Give me a break!
Of course they have cable television -- what else are they supposed to have?
What would he have them do with their time when they are elderly and incapable of working or discriminated against to the point that they are not welcome to work?
What would he have them do with their time, when they have so many health conditions that the only topics of conversation that they are able to have is about what is wrong with them?
What would he have them do when they receive on average from Social Security or Disability,
$800. or less a month?
Could you live on $800. a month? More importantly, would you want your parents to live on $800. a month?

Now I don't know the status of Mr. Romney's parents, but if they are both alive and well right now, do you think that they are living on $800. a month?

Some of these people have worked their entire lives to receive the government's pittance of income and they are barely able to survive. Although, some of the federally funded programs enable the rents to be conducive with their income, it still leaves them on an incredibly tight budget. Food stamps are necessary for survival and the amount that they are allotted is pathetic and sad because if you are earning too much money from Social Security or Disability, you can't be awarded too many food stamps.
How on earth can it be determined that they are earning too much money?

Isn't it bad enough that the elderly and handicapped are treated with such degradation, that they are overlooked, forgotten and discounted?
They work hard for their entire lives, our parents -- they make a life for us, they prepare us for the life that we are currently living, they sacrifice and love us unconditionally, they give us all that they can in the way of wisdom, nurture and love. They protect us from the dark elements of life, they give us lessons and discipline and then when they get old, we discard them because we can't be bothered?

Is that how you feel about your parents? Because if it is, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself and search your soul for some better answers.
There are extenuating circumstances in many cases and not all parents are like those I've just described, but many are and because of their age and condition, they are left to scramble for the few crumbs that are left behind for them.

People who are working, that are not elderly and that earn regular incomes can afford to work a few extra hours, can afford to cut back and they don't have to have the $60,000 vehicle. Can you imagine -- some people will pay more for a vehicle than what they are willing to give to an elderly person in their own family who already paid their dues and paid taxes their entire lives?

This is unfair and Mitt Romney is making it legal and okay to discriminate against the people that gave us our life and shaped us so that we can make the differences in the world. Do we want our children to treat us with the same disdain?
Do we want to be left to figure it out and asked to do without the extras like cable television because the state needs to cutback?
Should we plan for our future only to find that we will be forced to curl up in a corner and die because there is nothing left for us to do because we can barely afford to live and our health will mean nothing because health insurance shouldn't be available for the elderly and handicapped?
Should the elderly and handicapped be blamed for the states lack of proper fiscal management?

Is that really what you want for your parents? Because that is what they are getting. Already, they aren't entitled to dental coverage or eye coverage. So if they go blind, so be it?
If their teeth rot out -- Oh well, they are old anyway?
If they can't afford all of their prescriptions, well too bad, because they got to live their lives and I don't want to pay higher taxes?
Is that how you feel about your parents and is that what you want for them?

Perhaps not all parents will be forced to suffer these types of consequences, certainly not people like Mitt Romney who is afforded the luxury of money and privilege in his life, but many of our parents, despite how hard they worked in their lives will have to suffer as a result of these types of cutbacks.
No, we don't really want to pay higher taxes, but can we afford to pay for their healthcare?
We still end up paying in the end, for a nursing home, for a nurse, for their healthcare, material items and food, and money to supplement their income. Aren't we paying more in the end anyway trying to take care of our parents because the state wants nothing to do with it?
So what if we pay higher taxes? It isn't going to cost anywhere near as much as taking care of our parents because they state doesn't like the elderly and the handicapped, because the state doesn't think that they are worthy, and because the state has forgotten that they had parents too just like the rest of us.

Therefore, search yourselves, look deep within your hearts and decide if a few higher taxes is worth the pain and suffering and nothingness that your parents will have to suffer if Mitt Romney continues with his crusade to make our elderly and handicapped extinct.
Check your priorities and ask yourselves, what if it were your parents?
2417
Travel
05-28-2003
09:30 AM ET (US)
Hey Sally, keep your travel tips to yourself.

And keep the mormon stuff off this board. There are enough reasons to think Mittens is joke without havign to plumb those depths.

For example:

http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com
2416
Sally Denton
05-27-2003
02:56 PM ET (US)
A Utah Massacre and Mormon Memory
By SALLY DENTON

SANTA FE, N.M.
As families tramp all over the country this summer,
visiting historic sites, there's one spot — Mountain
Meadows in southwestern Utah — that won't be on many
itineraries.

Mountain Meadows, a two-hour drive from one of the
state's popular tourist destinations, Zion National
Park, is the site of what the historian Geoffrey Ward
has called "the most hideous example of the human cost
exacted by religious fanaticism in American history
until 9/11." And while it might not be a major tourist
destination, for a century and a half the massacre at
Mountain Meadows has been the focus of passionate
debate among Mormons and the people of Utah. It is a
debate that cuts to the core of the basic tenets of
Mormonism. This, the darkest stain on the history of
the religion, is a bitter reality and challenging
predicament for a modern Mormon Church struggling to
shed its extremist history.

On Sept. 11, 1857, in a meadow in southwestern Utah, a
militia of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, or Mormons, attacked a wagon train of Arkansas
families bound for California. After a five-day siege,
the militia persuaded the families to surrender under
a flag of truce and a pledge of safe passage. Then, in
the worst butchery of white pioneers by other white
pioneers in the entire colonization of America,
approximately 140 men, women and children were
slaughtered. Only 17 children under the age of 8 — the
age of innocence in the Mormon faith — were spared.

After the massacre, the church first claimed that
local Paiute Indians were responsible, but as evidence
of Mormon involvement mounted, it placed the sole
blame for the killings on John D. Lee, a militia
member and a Mormon zealot who was also the adopted
son of the prophet Brigham Young. After nearly two
decades, as part of a deal for statehood, Lee was
executed by a firing squad in 1877. The church has
been reluctant to assume responsibility — labelling
Lee a renegade — but several historians, including
some who are Mormon, believe that church leaders,
though never prosecuted, ordered the massacre.

Now, 146 years later, Lee's descendants and the
victims' relatives have been pressing the Mormon
Church for an apology. The move for some official
church acknowledgment began in the late 1980's, when a
group of Lee descendants, including a former United
States secretary of the interior, Stewart Udall, began
working to clear their ancestor's name. In 1990,
descendants of victims and perpetrators began urging
the Mormon Church to accept responsibility for the
massacre and to rebuild a crumbling landmark
established at the site by United States Army troops
in 1859.

The current church president, Gordon B. Hinckley —
himself a prophet who says he receives divine
revelations — took a personal interest in the episode,
and in 1998 he agreed to restore the landmark where at
least some of the bodies were buried. But even that
concession turned controversial when, in August 1999,
a church contractor's backhoe accidentally unearthed
the bones of 29 victims. After a debate between Utah
state officials and church leaders — what has been
called Utah's "unique church-state tango" — about
state laws requiring unearthed bones to be
forensically examined for cause of death, the church
had the remains quickly reburied without any extensive
examination that might have drawn new attention to the
brutality of the murders.

A month later, on Sept. 10, 1999, when descendants of
the perpetrators and the victims gathered to dedicate
a church-financed monument in what they hoped would be
a "healing" service, both sides were disappointed by
Mr. Hinckley's remarks. He continued to hedge on the
issue of church responsibility, even adding a legal
disclaimer many found offensive. "That which we have
done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment
of the part of the church of any complicity in the
occurrences of that fateful day," he said. This was
thought by many to be an effort to avoid
wrongful-death lawsuits. But the church's reluctance
to apologize is more complicated.

At a time when religions around the world are
acknowledging and atoning for past sins, the massacre
has left the Mormon Church in a quandary. Roman
Catholics have apologized for their silence during the
Holocaust, United Methodists for their massacre of
American Indians during the Civil War, Southern
Baptists for their support of slavery, and Lutherans
for Martin Luther's anti-Jewish remarks. But unlike
the leaders of other religions, who are believed to be
guided by the hand of God, Mormon prophets are
considered extensions of him.

To acknowledge complicity on the part of church
leaders runs the risk of calling into question Brigham
Young's divinity and the Mormon belief that they are
God's chosen people. "If good Mormons committed the
massacre," wrote a Mormon writer, Levi Peterson, "if
prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a
prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D.
Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church
seems tainted."

Believing they were doing God's work in ridding the
world of "infidels," evangelical Mormon zealots
committed one of the greatest civilian atrocities on
American soil. Without a sustained attempt at
accountability and atonement, the church will not
escape the hovering shadow of that horrible crime.

Sally Denton is the author of the forthcoming
"American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadow,
September 1857."
2415
Westwood Six Ppack
05-24-2003
10:59 PM ET (US)
Hey webmaster I know Romney reads this web site because we talked about it the other night in my bar.

P.S. Tell him not to worry about that $62.00 dollar bar bill he forgot to pay, I grabbed Ferhstein in the parking lot and the big tipper took care of it.......
2414
the REAL story
05-24-2003
11:17 AM ET (US)
http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/
2413
jeannie
05-23-2003
12:35 PM ET (US)
As a hispanic-american born and raised in Boston with Puerto Rican parents. I would like to bring up an issue, there are lots of immigrant woman that come to this country and become pregant, to stay in the country and then they get their delivery paid for by Mass Health, this is a person that never has paid taxes to the state. Two-years ago I was depressed and was not able to go to work and was able to get Social Security but, I sill paid a Masshealth premiunm, which this is ok with me, because I was always use to paying for my health insurance. But, someone that never lived or paid taxes in the US free Masshealth and delivery cost of a child, which is expensive. Many woman that immigrate from this country already know that if they have a child in this country they can stay and get benefits, what is this doing to our country. Then they live men from the US and do not report their earnings. This is upsetting because these people end up on Section 8, and end up saving money and then, they say to someone in this country that has worked all their lives why did it take so long to purchase your house. Hello, we did not live on assistance during the time your husband stayed with you and did not report your earnings, received MassHealth for free and never worked in the US. People whom receive Masshealth should have at least a 5 or more years of employment prior to having a service. And as for the women that come to have children and they are illegal should be sent back with the child, they think if they have a child they do not have to leave the country, are we going against the immigration laws for this?
2412
very funny jake!
05-21-2003
06:43 PM ET (US)
Jake took this quote from a Republican Texas Representative word for word. if you don't believe me, click here: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/disp...21/pols_naked3.html
^               2412-2427 of 2427  2396-2411 >>