Rkiver wrote:Well let's not forget he is (as a mormon bishop) against same sex rights in EVERY way possible. Wants to interfere with planned parenthood to essentially remove it, claims he has a five point plan to fix the economy, yet it's the same plan as both previous Bushs and all they did was plunge the US economy into a mess, he's anti education and anti-science, and is on record as saying that Russia is a big threat to the US, and last but not least wants to remove the separation of church and state.
For starters, the religious point is false, both for him and for the religion. I'd figure it's hyperbole but given your emphasis something tells me that it's just you getting excitable about something you're misinformed about.
Planned parenthood? He wants to remove federal funding of abortions. The economy? He's actually more in line with Clinton than with either Bushes. That's something that poli-sci folk have been highly amused about over here, and it's been a fun discussion over whether Clinton for Obama has helped or hurt him. On one hand Clinton lends his name, but it also reminds people that Romney is much more like a pragmatic moderate, like Clinton, than Obama is.
Anti-education? I'd like to know the basis for that. While Governor of Massachusetts they had one of the best school systems in the nation. Anti-science? That's a term generally used as the modern version of "heretic", a label for some who doesn't subscribe to your dogma, or who takes a different side of a contested scientific issue.
No, I don't think that Romney is anti-education, or anti-science. Rather, I think that he disagrees with you on things. A pluralistic society means that people can disagree without one being "anti".
Rkiver wrote:So while the points you raised are indeed valid, he's not the sort of man you want at the head of the good ship America. The world is a very international place these days, and you need a president that not only your own country can respect, but others can too. And I can tell you this much, outside of the US Romney is a joke. We have ZERO idea how anyone could every want someone like that in charge.
Which ones have they liked? Washington was a country bumpkin farmer to the British, Adams a provincial lawyer, Lincoln a backwoods farm hand, Teddy Roosevelt a cowboy, etc. Good leaders don't emerge by asking who other people like to have at their parties.
So tell me, what has electing Obama, whom the world loved, gotten for us internationally?