Skip to comments.John Bolton to endorse Mitt Romney
Posted on 01/11/2012 7:53:41 PM PST by Bigtigermike
(CNN) John Bolton, the former U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, is set to endorse presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a source close to Romneys presidential campaign said Wednesday.
Bolton served in the administrations of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before former President George W. Bush appointed him the U.N. role.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
When it comes to supporting the Constitution, the obligations of the Executive and the officers of the Judicial branch are identical. So, I don’t really know what you’re talking about.
In theory but do you believe that the MA Supreme Court thought they were acting unconstitutionally?
You are right - about it all. Thanks for clarifying it.
If things remain the same - we lose.
Re: “I do think we need to winnow the field before Florida, because Florida is winner-take-all.”
.....or ease the suffering of another 4 years by beefing-up the House and Senate and repealing ObamaCare...
The establishment is endorsing Romney like we all knew they would.
Bolton was always a cipher on domestic issues. Now we have a better idea of where he stands. I'm disappointed but not surprised. He probably wants to snag the Sec of State post.
Ah you’re right he’s for (or rather I would say “not against” gay marriage.)
If I heard that I had forgotten.
As far as I’m concerned civil unions are just about the same thing they just aren’t called “marriage”.
The debate isn’t merly about the use of the word “marriage”. I don’t see why someone would honestly be for civil unions and against gay marriage. It’s just a silly attempt at a compromise.
“...As far as Im concerned civil unions are...”
..NOT the relevant issue.
The ECONOMY is the relevant issue, and how badly Obama and his demomarxists f***ed up the economy, wrecked the housing market, and made people lose their jobs. 15 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt is the issue. Unelected Czars are the issue. Bloated faceless unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies are the issue.
At all of these debates, the GOP let themselves get sidetracked, misdirected, and led down this stupid path, and other paths - like that little weasel Stephanopoulos and his assinine contraception question.
The answer to these kinds of questions is: “That’s not the issue in this election. This election is about the incompetency of the current administration and his party going back to 2006 when they “seized control” of Congress, and how they wrecked peoples’ lives and prosperity, and are continuing to do so.”
THAT’s the correct and only answer to whenever the Mediots and their partisan moderators bring up that stupid issue.
Homos represent what, about 1-2% of the total population, and suddenly THIS is a pressing, national emergency issue? People are losing their jobs, their life savings, and their livelihoods because of the Dems and their f***ed up subversive Marxist economics.
The GOP better damn well learn how to answer these idiots back on the stage. This is sideshow crap, and does NOT put people back to work, nor does it enable the economy to jump start, nor does it do anything to bring back the housing market.
I’ll do something I NEVER do - I’ll paraphrase Slick Willy to the GOP: “It’s The ECONOMY, you jackasses”.
Your post is consists of layers of misunderstandings of what ails the country and the way we do politics. But I’m too tired tonight to bother with unpeeling them.
I think that calling same-sex couples “marriages” does a heck of a lot more damage to society than does calling them “civil unions.” At least the word “marriage” would still mean something.
Thqt being said, I can’t countenance “civil unions” for same-sex couples because it gives the special rights just because they do things in the bedroom that Judeo-Christian society has deemed immoral for millennia. And even if heterosexual couples could also apply for a civil-union license, it would still give society’s imprimatur to sodomites qua
sodomites and fornicators qua fornicators.
While I can empathize with someone with a loved one in the hospital whom he’s not allowed to visit, or who is unable to assign death benefits to a loved one, I think these problems can be solved through a simple power-of-attorney and a will. But if there are rights that cannot be provided contractually, I think that it would be fair if we created a legal status for two people who live under the same roof and wish to enter into a contractual arrangement that covered all these things. But here’s the most important part: in order not to give special rights to people just because they are involved in an immoral sexual relationship, I think that the “cohabitation partnerships” (or whatever we call them) should be available not just to two homosexuals who live together or to live-in heterosexual couples who don’t want to marry, but also to elderly sisters who live in the same home or a widower and his elderly mother or other non-sexual couples who wish to enter into these partnerships. That way, we wouldn’t be giving special rights to gays merely because of their immorality; we would be giving them the same rights afforded to other couples who live under the same roof irrespective of whether they have a sexual relationship.
If gays in favor of same-sex marriage really cared only about having the right to visit their lover at the hospital, etc., they would agree to this compromise that would give themmthe rights they seek without forcing the majority to sanction what they do in their bedrooms. But if what the gay lobby is after is the destruction of the institution of marriage and an iconoclastic rupture with Judeo-Christian teaching on morality, then they’ll run away from this like a vampire from a cross.
Don’t fall for the ancient trick of distractions!
“...layers of misunderstandings of what ails the country and the way we do politics...”
I know what ails the country, my friend.
You are correct, however, about misunderstanding the politics. I’m just basically sick of the bullsh*t and our side not knowing how to fight back.
We don’t have a money problem, we have a moral problem.
Ignore the moral problem and there is no possible way to effectively deal with the money problem.
“...We dont have a money problem, we have a moral problem...”
True that, and I agree with you; however, the vast majority of the viewing public have no understanding of that - or worse - don’t care; they DO know and care, however, that their wallets and pocketbooks are getting raped, that their paychecks are getting raped, and their life savings are getting pilfered. And that is the issue at question for many, many people.
No one person is going to change the moral course of the nation, but he can indeed put the brakes on the slide into financial oblivion if he knows how to handle the economy and the numbers. And to my mind if we get a grip on the one, we can start to repair the other.
But we have be in the driver seat first...
And the place to debate the moral issue is definitely NOT with a panel of leftist/liberal lunatic moderators intent on making our candidates look like religious zealots in front of TV cameras at every opportunity.
To my mind, when they do the misdirect, our side should drag them back to the issue of the miserable failure of their party and their guy and the financial chaos they’ve caused. Every time they do it, remind them that those side/social issues do NOT put people back to work.
Just my take on it.
I’m for civil unions and not gay marriage and don’t find it silly. Marriage has religious and civil meaning and civil unions can be more narrowly defined as to not force religions to change their definition. I think it’s both just and beneficial to society to allow individuals more freedom in defining their associations (hospital visits, insurance benefits, estate matters ...). I understand that’s a more libertarian bend than many here desire, but what I find silly is when people label the homosexual lifestyle as one of loose associations and bath house behavior and then do not favor laws that provide them an alternative. Donning my ZOT resistant armor. —sick1
“Civil unions” are “gay” “marriage.”
Well then by your definition of marriage I’m for gay marriage. I understand why you don’t see a difference - just don’t agree.
Anyone who wants such legal benefits or contracts can do so right this very minute, whoever they are, without "gay marriage" or "civil unions". Anyone with 2 brain cells knows that. Homosexuals have been pushing for "gay marriage" not for these reasons but to change society and the very meaning of marriage and family, and they have publicly admitted this.
what I find silly is when people label the homosexual lifestyle as one of loose associations and bath house behavior and then do not favor laws that provide them an alternative.
What I find more than disingenuous is the argument that mentally ill sex perverts will change their ways if they can legally get "married" or have a civil union. Mentally ill is mentally ill and perversion is perversion, legal unions or not. Very few homosexuals who get legally married are monogamous and not very many even get married in places that allow it. There is no good reason to normalize faggotry and many excellent reasons not to.
Bolton is on board the fag agenda - he’s for fags in the military, fag marriage, etc.
He’s dead to conservatives when they find that out.
Mojitojoe, please check out this poster. Freepmail coming your way.