Originally Posted by Literature
Baby Lee-like criticism of Romney:
I oppose Romney because he advocates for curbing costs of Medicare. It's not that curbing costs of Medicare is a bad idea, it's just that I know (or, I think I know) what he really wants is to get rid of Medicare altogether. And with Medicare gone, the conservatives will then be able to move to dismantling social security. And when that's gone, they will move to getting rid of temporary unemployment insurance, the Department of Agriculture, the income tax, the 14th Amendment, and nominate judges who completely obliterate commerce clause jurisprudence.
With all that gone, we can then return to market-based solutions for everything, including wages, labor determinations, and possibly reintroduce slavery.
It's not that I oppose Romney for curbing costs to Medicare. It's that I oppose Romney because it will lead to slavery.
Difference being, Romney's never said he wants Medicare gone, Social Security gone, or a return of slavery.
OTOH, Obama has, with his very own lips, gums, and vibrating vocal cords, stated that these compromises 'pave the way' to the 'desired end result'
Public option paves the way to single payer, paving the way to universal health care and government provided care as a right.
Environmental restrictions pave the way to cap and trade, paving the way to coal, nuclear and fossil fuels becoming so expensive that government programs can replace them with renewables.
Government intrusion into healthcare paves the way into a shared responsibility for healthy citizens, paving the way for governmental guidance of diet and exercise habits.
These are Obama enunciated rationales, not my personal fever dream concoctions. But again, you know this but prefer to mischaracterize and lie for your little precious patch of turf.