Posted on 08/29/2012 4:54:52 PM PDT by DallasBiff
” Stating the truth is not whining. “
Yep !
Put up Ronald Reagan as a candidate again, with the tea party behind him and a conservative media on radio and internet, we don’t know how far right his agenda would be, but it would be far to the right of where he was in 1979, the year that Mitt left the GOP.
And has Romney supported that by government fiat, the answer is no.
Anyway I was there at 6:00 AM on August 1, 2012 at Chick Fil A, to buy 4 chicken biscuits, just to put in the nose of the queer mafia.
The “Romney-is-severely-conservative” people are the one who have been non-stop calling for Todd Akin to drop out. Apparently we’re supposed to turn a blind eye to Romney’s many shortcomings. The same standards don’t apply for Akin. He is unashamedly pro-life and that is a no-no for these people.
GOP radio would have loved Reagan in 1980 and 1984, like we all did, where do you guys come up with this nonsense, is it a method of saying something else, a way to insult the Reagan conservatives that don’t approve of the leftward instincts of the current nominee?
Romney is radical for the homosexual agenda.
I didn’t know the GOP had talk radio?
Were you even born before 1980?
I was in my mid-teens and terrified about another Carter presidency.
John Anderson was considered a major threat to Reagan.
When the Reagan landslide happened, it was a big surprise.
Why did you substitute your name, when I clearly meant Romney?
Furthermore, why is it assumed that I would favor Obama simply by observing that the Republican party is broken? Is it forbidden to even notice problems in the Republican party, lest you be labeled an Obama supporter? Is this the Republican form of Politically Correct speech and the censorship of nonconforming viewpoints we see extant in the liberal worldview?
That is why Mark Levin - and I - ask why the Romney cabal has "toned down" criticism of Obama and practically banished the invocation of his name last night.
Reagan was pro-life when he signed that bill for the health of the mother in 1967, although we didn’t have language like pro-life, and pro-choice yet and most of us weren’t sure what it was all about, back then we were told that it was merely, a “unviable tissue mass”.
Reagan was sucker punched, and it tormented him, Mitt Romney was already for abortion at the time, and remained so, this week he said he wants abortion for the “health” of the mother.
Wonderful quote, and I'm not afraid.
Nor will I be browbeaten with the Obama-Fan stick simply for making correct observations.
It is as if I was in college, and if I observed that one plus one equals two, the professor screamed, "You hate calculus!"
Your beloved Romney said Reagan signing a law that made provision for the health of the mother makes him pro-choice. But now Romney comes out and says his abortion position is now exactly the same. But he claims that makes him pro-life. What gives?
Which lie is he telling now? Reagan had no idea the dems would twist the health of the mother to mean abortions for morning sickness and any other thing imaginable. He also regretted what had happened with all his heart.
With the benefit of 40+ years of experience, Romney, on the other hand, knew full well that the health of the mother is the dems trick to get all abortion covered and now believes he should be considered pro-life. Even though he never shed one tear or expressed any regret for the laws, and the appointees he is responsible for that lead to the murder of children. To this very day, he sings the praises of his fifty dollar or free abortion Romneycare and contrary to some of his prior statements, his own sister says he is still pro-choice.
Reagan went from caring enough about the mothers to fall for the democrats ruse to standing up for the children. Romney went from caring nothing about the babies to caring only about getting elected. Big change there, eh.
No, but the problem is, is you don't differentiate, which is more broken the democrats or the republicans.
So what? I am commenting on the contradictions in your statements.
Nossir. I do not need to differentiate. I can simply state the very obvious and compelling fact, that the Republican party is truly broken.
To simplify it, let us say I was a prosecutor, and I was prosecuting a rapist. Would I need to show that the rapist was less guilty than a murderer, or that the rapist was more guilty than a shoplifter?
No. I would not.
The simple fact is that the GOP has a very serious problem when our nominees tend to be the very last choice of most of the voters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.