Skip to comments.John Bolton to endorse Mitt Romney
Posted on 01/11/2012 7:53:41 PM PST by Bigtigermike
click here to read article
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.
Maybe I’m just off today and can’t remember a well known fact: what evidence is there that Romney and/or Bolton support gay “marriage”?
Thanks in advance.
I pinged out at least 2 articles last year when Bolton made his position on fag marriage and fags in the military clear. He’s for them both. Google and you’ll see. I don’t have the time to search through what I’ve pinged out or the homosexual agenda articles (those were some of the keywords) but he definitely is pro-homo marriage and pro-homos in the military. Not even the slightest doubt about it; many people were quite surprised and not happy about his comments in that regard.
If you don’t know that Romney supports homo marriage, you need to get out more. What do you think he did when he was Governmor of Mass? You haven’t read all the stuff about his very vocal and public support of “gay rights” at the time?
Reiterating a point he made to the Daily Caller, Bolton confirms he’s willing to rankle some social conservatives by positioning himself to the Left of [Alleged] President Obama by explicitly voicing support for gay marriage. “I think [same-sex marriage] is something that in society today, we ought to be able to live with,” he says.
Thank you very much! Will save those.
Clintonfatigued, check out these three posts/links EternalVigilance posted. Very good damning info on Romney. Just in case anyone needs their face rubbed in it!
Placemark for Romneyfacts.
You are right, economy/money is almost always the overriding issue in every election.
Romney is the establishment candidate, so don’t be too shocked when the establishment supports him.
The Tea Party demographics is mainly upper income suburbans, mainly women. They will all hop on board the Romney Express.
Google “mitt romney” and number 3 that comes up is “Mitt Romney dog on car roof”
This is going to get really ugly!
That IMO is what we should strive for.
A neutered Obama with a GOP Senate and House is looking preferable to Romney-Obama-lite, with his Mormon belief system that he is becoming God. Anyone who would put a dog on the roof of his car for a trip cannot be trusted.
The lesser of two evils is an option I’m not sure I’m going to fall for this time around.
That's okay by me. But I'd prefer it to be less formalized, just make it easier/more streamlined to contract property rights and so on. I'm no legal expert but I can't think of any right that you couldn't contract for.
At least not any right they should have, we certainly don't need to be paying for spousal or survivor benefits to the partners of gay public employees.
But if it's a civil union with all the privileges of marriage, available only to gay lovers.....well I said the other day that semantics does matter but...."marriage"...just a word, "civil union", 2 words.
That's why I don't understand why they aren't happy with "civil unions" and demand "marriage". 2 men can't "marry" each other anymore than a teenage boy can marry his dad's Playboy collection.
But if what the gay lobby is after is the destruction of the institution of marriage
I forget where I heard this but some prominent gay activist IIRC said he'd prefer to just abolish marriage. He may have used the term "heteronormative" but as long as it exists gays should have it too. I get the sense that they don't all agree.
I know who wants it the most, divorce lawyers. Cha-ching.
People understand money more than anything else.
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.