Newt Gingrich believes Michelle Obama's butt is THIS big...
While Mitt Romney insists Michelle Obama's butt is only this big...
Not making fun of your post, it just made me think of this gag. ;)
Posted on 04/16/2012 10:47:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Here are their positions on some major issues important to conservatives based on their actual records in government or past boasts.
| Issue | Obama | Romney | Newt |
| Advocated that abortion s/b safe & legal in America | y | y | n |
| Defended Roe v Wade as settled law | y | y | n |
| Advocated for abortion for underage girls without parental approval with judge's ok | y | y | n |
| Supported planned parenthood | y | y | n |
| Introduced $50 taxpayer funded abortion | y | y | n |
| Supports homosexual agenda | y | y | n |
| Better for homosexuals than Ted Kennedy | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in Scouts | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in military | y | y | n |
| Supported and still supports global warming hoax | y | y | n |
| Supports gun control (so-called "assault weapons" ban) | y | y | n |
| Supports amnesty for illegal aliens (by any other name it's still amnesty) | y | y | n |
| Is undeniable father of RomneyCare | n | y | n |
| Is undeniable grandfather of ObamaCare | n | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is great! | y | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is a "conservative solution" | n | y | n |
| Still believes RomneyCare is constitutional | y | y | n |
| Still believes individual mandate ok at state level | y | y | n |
| Believes state forcing individuals to buy health insurance is a conservative idea | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance with mandates and penalties s/b imposed on all states at state level | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance at state level is constitutional (states rights) | ? | y | n |
| Believes the state has constitutional power to force you into a private contract against your will for no other reason than you live there | y | y | n |
| Supports government "stimulus" spending claims more is necessary | y | y | n |
| Believes personal income tax should be cut drastically (15% flat tax) | n | n | y |
| Believes corp income tax should be cut drastically (12.5% corp rate) | n | n | y |
| Believes capital expenditures should be 100% expensed in first year | n | n | y |
| Believes capital gains tax should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes estate tax (death tax) should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes federal government must be drastically cut per constitutional limits | n | n | y |
| Believes unconstitutional federal functions like education should be returned to the states and people per tenth amendment | n | n | y |
| Believes social security/medicare s/b phased out/privatized/returned to states and people | n | n | y |
| Believes everyone at EPA should be fired and start over as an agency to look for solutions/not hinder industry | n | n | y |
| Believes the constitution restricts the government from infringing on inalienable rights | n | n | y |
| Appoints/supports/cowers to liberal activist judges | y | y | n |
| Will challenge activist judiciary | n | n | y |
| Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up | n | n | y |
Since I live in Texas, I am lucky and can vote anyway I like since I know The GOP candidate will carry Texas. But personally I think 4 more years of Obama is the worst possible out come. If it looks close in Texas I will vote for the GOP nominee, if not I’ll vote of the most conservative candidate I can find at the top and GOP down ticket.
Now then; can ya make it B/W only, so it won’t use so much ink in my printer??
Maybe change the Y/N’s to Yes/No’s?? (They look mighty similar to old eyes...)
Like I said his reasons at the time were sound. But he did support TARP.
You claim to be a conservative, yet you intend to support someone who is nearly as much a documented far-left liberal as Obama is.
Oh, you bet we get to tell you that you're no conservative. Besides, you voted for John Kerry, remember? It's in your tagline.
Not making fun of your post, it just made me think of this gag. ;)
I agree. The right paradigm is to be looking for the better of two goods. Since both Romney and Obama are evil with one supposedly “lesser”, then neither would qualify for support.
Jim’s list pretty well confirms our position that Romney is no improvement over Obama.
I've heard via a reliable source that the DNC is convinced by their internal polling that they can win in many previously GOP-dominated districts because of a vastly diminished GOP turnout due to a lack of enthusiasm for Romney. Everyone who loathes Romney and who cannot bring themselves to vote for him still needs to get out and vote for the conservative Congressional and Senatorial candidates. No matter whether Mitt or Obama wins the Oval Office, we're going to need as many conservatives as possible om Congress to counter their inherent liberalism.
The best way to slap the GOP-E is to show them that they might get their guy, but they won't get their way.
I voted for Newt in the primary here in Oklahoma.
Just thinking out loud ...
I interpret it as meaning he will be unanswerable for his actions and can then push any agenda he wants.
I can tell you're one of those who absolutely refuses to vet a candidate's record, and simply makes up your mind based upon campaign rhetoric and sloganeering.
These were the economic repercussions the last time Republican voters elected Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney’s Dismal Record
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
My perspective hasn't changed, fwiw.
The establishment Republican leadership are forcing the insideous Mitt Romney down the throats of tea partiers because the establishment fears the rise of the Tea Party.
This is what I don't understand. We are having a primary. We had Pawlenty, McCotter, Cain, Bachmann, Roemer, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum. These people split the anti-Romney votes in each bitterly contested state race. All of those people could have gotten together with Newt early on when he was obviously superior to them in the debates. But no, we had people insisting that Michelle was better than Newt with his multiple wives. Or Cain was better than Newt because 999 and he was black and would win back the black vote.
I'm opposed to Karl Rove shooting us in the back, but I also oppose the Tea Party shooting each other in the face.
;-) You’re all right!!!
(And yes, I had to go look up “sardonic.”)
Sweet!
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.