Posted on 02/14/2008 1:52:06 PM PST by Jim Robinson
If Obamma wins the nomination, his Kennedyesque rhetoric might well take him to the White-house where he will once again rip the heart out of the Military.
He will win. Even if the strongest anti-McCain voters vote for Hillary. I am so angry as well with the prospect of John McCain as the nominee, but mostly it is because I don’t think he can win. That being said, despite who I want, the most important thing to me is a stong national defense, and a strong feeling of nationality among us. Neither Hillary nor Obama will keep us free, despite the rhetoric. Freedom is my most cherished posession. So, I don’t want to risk losing it by sitting out or voting the other way. Despite John McCain.
All I’m saying is any of the original candidates would be better than the alternatives. Not perfect, but better.
They lost. Furgetaboutitalready.
I’m not mourning the loss of any of them. I’m just looking at what is left, and it’s better than the alternative.
Easy. It doesn't take much to know what's appropriate at a certain time/place/thread or not. It's not rocket science, and it's just basic common courtesy and respect for each other.
I am not a Romney guy by any means, but I think this is consistent with his stated reasons for dropping out of the race. He said winnig this WOT is more important than his candidacy, and he thought either he or McCain would do better than the democRat candidates. He also said the Republican candidate had to be strong going into the general election, and he and McCain were draining each other's resources. Therefore he bowed out.
That was the only Mitt speech I've agreed with. Wish it had been Hunter, Tancredo or Thompson he was deferring to, though.
And now we’re stuck with John McCain. It would have been an order of magnitude better to rally behind Romney, but No! Republicans really are the stupid party.
None the less you are STILL mistaken. You are STILL wrong. And you are STILL slandering and saying things that are not true.
Do what you want, but an untruth is an untruth no matter how you package it.
The health insurance plan put forward actually pushed people OUT of government health care. Spin it how you want to but that is a fact.
If you are among the 80% of the population that can show you have private health insurance then your life is between you, your insurance company, and your doctor.
There is no government in there. If you can find some show it to me.
If you are among the 20% that doesn't have health insurance (but can afford it) Mitt Romney's plan said either A. Provide your own private insurance or B. Have a health savings plan set up at your local bank.
Where is government issued insurance in that plan? No where. Thats where.
Second, to say Mitt endorsed gay marriage is a flat out lie.
As for "no thanks" I will say "no thanks to lying conservatives"
You want to know how we ended up with McCain? Thats exactly how.
Long live conservatism, but how one can come up with those 'facts' is beyond me.
Ronald Reagan on compulsory health insurance:
Mitt's ideas are completely in line with what Reagan was saying.
1. Free enterprise. 2. Personal coverage and personal responsibility. 3. No government insurance. 4. No expanding of social security type of health care.
Now again, I am asking you how does that contradict any of the principles put forth by having the population under private health care of their own choosing?
The second point is I think you are grasping at straws trying to connect Mitt Romney with that post. it is apples and bannanas.
Ronald Reagan was talking about big government health care and health insurance that was forced upon all people from the federal level. IE a new government program.
Mitt Romney on the other hand was talking about those people who go to the hospital and run up huge bills that are passed along to you and me, and which are continuing to get more and more... and he devised a way to make those people pay their own way through private insurance.
This in turn forced those people in effect back to the square that they are supposed to be responsible for themselves and to have a system in place to pay for themselves WITHOUT government paying for them.
Again, how do you connect those two? You don't. It is sheer intellectual dishonesty to try and say those are the same thing.
By the way, do you have a transcript of that speech? I think it would be wonderful to go over the principles contained in it one by one.
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.