Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A (Virgil)'Goode' plan to save American jobs
World Net Daily ^ | 21 May 12 | WND

Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins

Listen to interview at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/a-goode-plan-to-save-american-jobs/?cat_orig=money

As President Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney remain locked in a virtual dead heat, is there any room for a third party to make a statement or even be competitive in 2012?

That’s the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.

Goode says Obama’s spending is completely out of control but Republican proposals are also not good enough because he says the budget needs to be balanced now and not in a few years or a couple of generations from now.

“I would submit a balanced budget if elected president, and it would be painful,” Goode told WND.

He expects a fierce fight with Congress about cutting spending, but his plan would not focus on entitlement reforms. Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending – both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget. When it comes to jobs, Goode’s top priorities are to end illegal immigration and nearly put a stop to legal immigration in order to prevent foreign workers from competing with Americans for the job opportunities that exist.

“We’ve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t get food stamps,” said Goode.

Goode says he would also seek to repeal Obama administration regulations that he says are stifling job creation. He would start with the Obama health care-laws which Goode considers the most repressive to job creators. The former congressman says he is not a spoiler in the race but is a much needed voice on fiscal responsibility, ending government programs for illegal immigrants and other issues.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: constitutionparty; elections; goode; goode2012; romneytruthfile; thirdparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last
Goode says "we should preserve American jobs for American citizens." when he calls for cutting off LEGAL immigration to a trickle. His thought is why bring in a million and a half foreigners seeking American jobs when we're suffering very high unemployment.

"We've got to focus on social service programs...food stamps." He says to be tough on new sign-ups and definitely no illegal or recent immigrants.

End any new increase in Defense Spending. Can't afford increases right now. Wait for the economy to improve. We want the best defense, but the economy being strong is the predicate that undergirds a strong defense.

1 posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:59 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; cripplecreek; cva66snipe; Elvina; greyfoxx39; Hilda; ImpBill; kabar; ...

Ping to article and to interview

Goode says we need to END birthright citizenship, and that both Romney and Obama support it.

Wants to end green carders getting tax reductions for claiming relatives living in other countries.


2 posted on 05/22/2012 7:08:16 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of Our Troops Pray they Win every Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

bfl


3 posted on 05/22/2012 7:32:28 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who worked for Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.


4 posted on 05/22/2012 8:37:02 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t get food stamps,” said Goode.

Who does he think he is? That's racist!

5 posted on 05/22/2012 8:52:29 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (When we cease to be good we'll cease to be great. Be for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.

I thought Jim Robinson called for a truce?

6 posted on 05/22/2012 8:54:24 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (When we cease to be good we'll cease to be great. Be for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.

Same old tired rhetoric from people who are content with the "scraps" and rare "win" they get from the Republican Party. Funny how some claim to have principles but then toss them out the window for what appears to be a potential win. Ultimately though, the Dems and Pubs are leading us down the same path, the only difference is the speed.

7 posted on 05/22/2012 9:00:08 AM PDT by voicereason (The RNC is the "One-night stand" you wish you could forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: voicereason; Paleo Conservative; P-Marlowe; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

For so many it’s a matter of having a winning team...the yankees, red sox, cowboys, lakers....you name it.

They care about the “win”. They talk about “loving” and “hating” candidates.

It’s an “emotional” investment akin to following a favorite team, a winning program being the ultimate.

For others, it’s a matter of the nation and the best principles for governing that nation.

These folks are not ABLE to support Romney any more than they’re able to support Obama. He is a big government, anti-life, anti-natural law candidate.

Romney defies the natural order, and therefore, he defies creation and its Creator.

He cannot be supported by principled conservatives. He can only be supported by the emotionally driven.


8 posted on 05/22/2012 9:08:36 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of Our Troops Pray they Win every Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.

Your an idiot. A vote for Goode is a vote for Goode. And you are not even close to a conservative if you are bashing the only conservative running in the General.


9 posted on 05/22/2012 9:34:22 AM PDT by napscoordinator (VOTE FOR NEWT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All

How is the Virgil “The Loser” Goode going to end birthright citizenship?? You do have to realize that in order amend the Constitution, you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to do it.


10 posted on 05/22/2012 9:39:01 AM PDT by KevinDavis (The birther movement was started by a 9/11 truther..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Exactly. Some people move from team to team, always trying to follow the winner because they want the ego boost.

I, on the other hand, have remained and always will be a KC Royals fan.


11 posted on 05/22/2012 9:59:32 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (A conservative voting for Romney is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis; xzins; All
How is the Virgil “The Loser” Goode going to end birthright citizenship?? You do have to realize that in order amend the Constitution, you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to do it.

Nope. Congress merely needs to clarify a definition (which, in this case, would be the one originally intended by the 14th amendment's author) of "natural born citizen" that excludes birthright citizenship. No need to amend anything except present statutory law.

12 posted on 05/22/2012 10:03:43 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (A conservative voting for Romney is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; xzins
Your an idiot.

Well at least I know the difference between "your" and "you're"!

13 posted on 05/22/2012 10:30:20 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Sorry but I can’t get behind a baby killer like you support. You can risk the fires of hell through your support of liberal Romney, but count me out.


14 posted on 05/22/2012 3:16:30 PM PDT by napscoordinator (VOTE FOR NEWT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis; P-Marlowe

I will disagree. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation and not the intent. An originalist would see BR ctzshp as misguided.


15 posted on 05/22/2012 4:58:26 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of Our Troops Pray they Win every Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks for sharing your views, dear brother in Christ!


16 posted on 05/22/2012 8:25:53 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
A vote for Goode is a vote for Obamanation.
Not true. If you cannot vote for Romney, then voting for Goode is a useful protest. This is doubly true in safe Obama states.
17 posted on 05/23/2012 11:10:34 AM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

My only concern (with a question) is for conserving non-Romney delegates, and to hopefully convert some uncommitted delegates, in order to make a showing on the second ballot that proves some degree of threat to the GOPE. It seems to me that an unknown who is seen as debuting a Third Party at this late date would not prove profitable to shaking up the Republican Party.

2010 was a kick off to change that mattered. The dissident vote against the GOPE is not entirely insignificant, and serves as one more step of fearlessness that if it can only gain steam, could be the wake-up call to the Establishment that their rule and reign, their money, pay offs, and pressure threats circulating around DC are coming to an end.

If Rush is right and the GOP only wanted the senate all along, then this is a Republican leadership out to defend turf and further entrench nothing more than their personal power, with no respect for the voters. Conservatives have simply got to cut them loose.

Delegates are now the last voice of the grassroots, and it seems to me that whoever of all the candidates has the most delegates in our upcoming state primaries should vote for that candidate, regardless who it is. There is no other way to make the Republican convention actually matter, is there?


18 posted on 05/23/2012 2:47:50 PM PDT by RitaOK (I WILL vote against Romney! Few are unafraid, but I thank God for the few. We are the resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It’s an “emotional” investment akin to following a favorite team, a winning program being the ultimate.

I so, then please explain to me how your position — and that of your like-minded coterie — isn't itself thoroughly "emotional," when you boil it all down.

19 posted on 05/23/2012 4:16:32 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

I sure hope this doesn’t put the Republican nominee behind Obama in the popular vote.


20 posted on 05/23/2012 6:39:28 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; xzins
I so, then please explain to me how your position — and that of your like-minded coterie — isn't itself thoroughly "emotional," when you boil it all down.

Because it's an adherence to conservative principle, and not tribal loyalty to the GOP?

This should be easy for you to understand bb.

Romney's actual record declares him to be a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal.

It's that simple.

Romney did the following which proves he's not a conservative and not even a Republican. Add in his constant lying about his opponents and his own record, and our position is ALL about conservative principle, not emotion:

1. Implemented Gay Marriage
2. Supported Abortion
3. Nominated 27 out of 36 extreme left-wing Progressive Liberal judges
4. Implemented an “Assualt” Weapons ban.
5. Implemented Socialized Medicine with a $50 Abortion
6. Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.
7. Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade system
8. Supported Amnesty for Illegals via McCain-Kennedy.
9. Supported the Brady Bill
10. Supported and forced Gay Adoption
11. Supported Global Warming.
21 posted on 05/23/2012 11:49:29 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; betty boop

Naming a group of hot button issues with zero context certainly comes as close to an emotional appeal as is possible while retaining plausible truthiness.


22 posted on 05/23/2012 11:54:51 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou, let me ABOs run loose! They are of much use Lou, so let me ABOs run loose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

I wouldn’t call anything safe. Never has a sitting _resident received so much opprobrium.


23 posted on 05/23/2012 11:56:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou, let me ABOs run loose! They are of much use Lou, so let me ABOs run loose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; betty boop
Naming a group of hot button issues with zero context certainly comes as close to an emotional appeal as is possible while retaining plausible truthiness.

No, that's his record, that's what we have to judge him on.

That and his constant lying ABOUT that record and his character assasination of his Republican, Actual Conservative opponents.

What's emotional is ignoring that record because he's got an R next to his name and running against the latest greater Evil the Democrats put up.
24 posted on 05/24/2012 8:33:07 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Records have contexts; this presents none.


25 posted on 05/24/2012 12:40:13 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou, let me ABOs run loose! They are of much use Lou, so let me ABOs run loose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Romney defies the natural order, and therefore, he defies creation and its Creator.

Word. Romney will NOT get my vote.

26 posted on 05/24/2012 12:55:30 PM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; xzins; napscoordinator; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; ThirstyMan; ...
My question: ...Please explain to me how your position — and that of your like-minded coterie — isn't itself thoroughly "emotional," when you boil it all down.

To which you replied: Because it's an adherence to conservative principle, and not tribal loyalty to the GOP.... This should be easy for you to understand bb.

Why are you imputing "tribal loyalty" to the GOP on my part, from which I resigned two years ago out of sheer disgust — because of the mounting equivocations of said party with regard to fundamental constitutional and conservative questions?

I am a registered voter in Massachusetts of "unenrolled" status. Meaning, I have no political party affiliation at all nowadays; I am politically an independent voter. Meaning: I do not carry water for the GOP; indeed, I have serious concerns about that party's evolution in recent times. (E.g., the "Big Tent" scenario, which requires the party to trash its own historical base.)

From my view as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any characterization of Mitt Romney as "a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal" does not comport with my understanding and experience of his tenure as governor of my state. I am frankly puzzled that such a rumor ever got "legs" to walk around on to begin with, such that you believe it.

Judging from what I have seen, this guy is no "progressive liberal." Where folks outside the state may deem him as such (for whatever peculiar reasons of their own), such a representation evinces profound ignorance about the "preferred method" of conducting the "official" State's business — given that Massachusetts is a machine-run state, much like Illinois, and California....

And the machine is not just Democrat liberal: it is outright Left-Progressive these days, bordering on anarchy....

How I long for the days of Tip O'Neill! But they are long-gone: Tip was a democratic populist; as such, he could work with a, say, Ronald Reagan to "get things done" for the people. Nowadays in Massachusetts, the machine is run by ideologues out of Harvard, MIT, and the labor unions. And they not only have an ax to grind against the historical American polity; but they want to utterly transform it — into something more congenial to their totally unhinged utopian dreams, so to construct a world in their own image. Which, whatever shortcomings one might find in a Tip O'Neill, is a completely different scenario than played in his political philosophy.

And Obama is "their guy." He's in their camp. Which is why he MUST be removed from presidential office.

You speak of Romney's "constant lying." Then you present a "list" of examples of his supposed malfeasance to support your view. But unfortunately, your "list" routinely falsifies objective reality.

Let's go through your list:

"1. [Romney] Implemented Gay Marriage."

Romney did no such thing. The Supreme Judicial Court — that is, the State Supreme Court — did that, and unilaterally.

The reason it played out that way: The gay lobbies had haunted the General Court (i.e., the Massachusetts legislature) and Senate to pass a gay marriage law literally for years. The elected legislative bodies in this state did not want to touch that issue with a ten-foot pole — no matter how sympathetic the various individuals composing those bodies might have been to "gay marriage." Reasons: (1) They did not want to risk their own reelections by casting a "yea" public vote on a matter that they knew in their heart of hearts was repugnant to a significant body of people living in their electoral districts (Massachusetts is heavily Catholic). (2) If they did cast such a vote, they risked facing a gubernatorial VETO — which would only prolong the public dispute, and put them on "the wrong side of the issue" as far as a majority of Massachusetts voters were concerned. Plus they would put themselves out of the protection of The Boston Globe, which would tirelessly lobby against any miscreant legislator or senator who would dare to cast a NAY vote against gay "marriage."

So the Massachusetts political class reverted to the "Massachusetts model": All public decisions, ideally, are not to be effected by elected, accountable bodies supposedly reflecting the public will. All important public decisions should be referred to the Courts.

In short, gay marriage in Massachusetts was not the act of the governor, or the legislature; it was a judicial decision — a decision of an unelected and unaccountable body "made law" by extra-constitutional means. (And I daresay without any serious reflection on the permissible mandates of the Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams wrote.)

Romney could not veto an act of the state supreme court, not like he could veto an act of the state legislature. The governor's powers do not constitutionally reach that far.

The governor's powers in Massachusetts are actually quite weak (and deliberately so) as compared with the powers of the chief executive in most other states. For the simply reason that the "machine" here prefers to get the public business (especially if it's socially divisive) done through unelected and unaccountable judicial courts.

2. [Romney] Supported Abortion

To this point, all I ask is for a direct quote from Romney in substantiation of your claim that he actively supports abortion. One that goes to the merits of the argument, not a statement in which he attempts to differentiate himself from any other person's claim in the matter (e.g., Teddy Kennedy's —who is probably roasting in Hell right about now....)

3. [Romney] Nominated 27 out of 36 extreme left-wing Progressive Liberal judges

I've mentioned this in the past, a couple of times by now. But I'll go another round with you on this question (evidently you didn't credit my last two posts on this subject). That fact is, the political machine in Massachusetts knows that it conducts its business with far greater felicity under a weak executive. The fact is, the governor of Massachusetts cannot make any direct appointment to any court in the Commonwealth. That is, he cannot nominate his own choice of candidates. Nominees for all judicial vacancies are selected by an unelected "governor's council." The governor is restricted to the choices advanced by this (unelected and thus unaccountable) body. Which puts the governor — if he is at all politically "conservative" — in the position of selecting the least worst candidates for the bench.

4. [Romney] Implemented an “Assualt” Weapons ban.

This is news to me. Of course, in Massachusetts, an "assault weapon" is any "scary looking" firearm, including child's toys. All firearms are "scary" to your average person living in Massachusetts — particularly among some of my dear women friends....

5. [Romney] Implemented Socialized Medicine with a $50 Abortion

So you are saying that Romney is the "Machiavelli" who engineered and single-handedly passed "Romneycare?" This does not compute. The legislature was agitating to "do something" BIG. Probably the only reason what they effected wasn't worse than it was, was because of fear of Romney's veto on points.

The fact is, Republican governors in Massachusetts in recent times — I'm including Bill Weld here — simply do not have the power to override the ideological supremacy and resources of Progressive Left ideology.

6. [Romney] Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.

This is news to me. He cut marginal income tax rates. He raised certain fees — but the sort of fees that were optional for any citizen to bear. The income tax, of course, is never "optional."

7. [Romney] Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade system

He did??? WOW. That's really news to me. Kindly fill me in on these details, which I seem to have missed somehow.

Arggh. As for items 8 through 11 on your list: I do not know what planet such events may have occurred on. But I do not recall any of them having occurred here in Massachusetts, under Romney's tenure as governor.

But perhaps you can supply further details, to show me what I may have "missed," as a concerned (and conservative) citizen of this Commonwealth.

In short, I just get the feeling that "you guys" are making up "stuff" as you go along.

To reach the point you want to make, but won't confess to: You deplore Romney's theology, and just can't get passed that, no, not even to save your own life, and the lives of your progeny.... And that is the long and the short of the present question....

There is a word for that sort of exercise: VANITY.

Well, again: JMHO FWIW.

Which I imagine is perfect "DIDDLEY-SQUAT" to you. For you seem to be so SURE of yourselves....

Which brings up another word: unholy PRIDE....

Be carefull of how you judge this man; for the elements of your judgment will assuredly redound on you personally, on the Day to come....

We have our Lord's promise with respect to precisely this matter....

Thank you so much for writing.

27 posted on 05/25/2012 6:16:08 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; SoConPubbie; P-Marlowe; napscoordinator; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; ...

I originally wrote something to the effect that those who are voting for someone whose positions they oppose, because they feel backed into a corner, are voting emotionally and not on their principles.

My memory does say that might not apply to you, Sister Betty, since you’ve been positive toward Romney throughout the primary season, although he might not have been your favorite. I’ve attributed that in a past discussion with you to your Massachusetts citizenship and the likelihood that you’d voted for him as governor and had overcome the cognitive dissonance years before the ABO’s here on FR.

So, while I don’t accept your apologetics for Romney that you listed for SoConPubbie — we’ve had that discussion before I won’t call your attention to hundreds of articles and posts that disagree with your facts (go to the RomneyTruthFile) — I will acknowledge that your support for Romney, given that it is long-standing, probably is not emotional on your part. You have had time to work through the dissonance and actually come down philosophically supportive of Romney.

I can’t agree with you, but it does appear you’ve decided that Romney truly is not a danger.

Do you consider Romney to be a conservative?


28 posted on 05/25/2012 8:18:32 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of Our Troops Pray they Win every Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
29 posted on 05/25/2012 8:54:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thank you for the interesting proposal, dear brother in Christ!
30 posted on 05/25/2012 8:56:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In short, gay marriage in Massachusetts was not the act of the governor, or the legislature; it was a judicial decision — a decision of an unelected and unaccountable body "made law" by extra-constitutional means. (And I daresay without any serious reflection on the permissible mandates of the Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams wrote.)

Romney could not veto an act of the state supreme court, not like he could veto an act of the state legislature. The governor's powers do not constitutionally reach that far.


So if the Supreme Court of MA decided it wanted to pass a law declaring that all first born males had to be given to the state of MA Romney would just have to go along, right?

No matter how illegal, no matter how unconstitional, no matter how immoral that decision was, Romney, in your opinion, had no other choice but to implement what ever the Supreme Court legislated (and I choose that word with care)?
31 posted on 05/25/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I've mentioned this in the past, a couple of times by now. But I'll go another round with you on this question (evidently you didn't credit my last two posts on this subject). That fact is, the political machine in Massachusetts knows that it conducts its business with far greater felicity under a weak executive. The fact is, the governor of Massachusetts cannot make any direct appointment to any court in the Commonwealth. That is, he cannot nominate his own choice of candidates. Nominees for all judicial vacancies are selected by an unelected "governor's council." The governor is restricted to the choices advanced by this (unelected and thus unaccountable) body. Which puts the governor — if he is at all politically "conservative" — in the position of selecting the least worst candidates for the bench

And yet Romney still had a choice. He could still refuse to accept whatever lousy, rotten, left-wing, Extremists that the legislature sent to him.

But as usual, as his MO is, he would rather make excuses, just like his supporters, and blame the process or someone else and pretend he did not have a choice in the matter.

But bottom line, HE HAD A CHOICE.
32 posted on 05/25/2012 11:52:20 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So you are saying that Romney is the "Machiavelli" who engineered and single-handedly passed "Romneycare?" This does not compute. The legislature was agitating to "do something" BIG. Probably the only reason what they effected wasn't worse than it was, was because of fear of Romney's veto on points.

The fact is, Republican governors in Massachusetts in recent times — I'm including Bill Weld here — simply do not have the power to override the ideological supremacy and resources of Progressive Left ideology.


Once again, EXCUSES for what Romney proudly calls his healthcare plan and there are a myriad of YouTube videos out there, many posted multiple times on FreeRepublic, of Romney proudly asserting this and proudly stating how he is in favor of the individual mandate even at the Federal Level.

And your problem with regards to your excuse concerning Republican Governors not having the necessary power to override the left's plans is that this was Romney's plan all along.
33 posted on 05/25/2012 11:55:51 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
6. [Romney] Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.

This is news to me. He cut marginal income tax rates. He raised certain fees — but the sort of fees that were optional for any citizen to bear. The income tax, of course, is never "optional."


Romney oversaw millions in fee hikes as Massachusetts governor (August, 2007 Article)

Mitt Romney’s ‘Taxachusetts’ Economic Policies

Mitt Romney Gave Massachusetts a $700 Million Increase in Fees and Taxes
34 posted on 05/26/2012 12:04:06 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
7. [Romney] Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade system

He did??? WOW. That's really news to me. Kindly fill me in on these details, which I seem to have missed somehow. Arggh. As for items 8 through 11 on your list: I do not know what planet such events may have occurred on. But I do not recall any of them having occurred here in Massachusetts, under Romney's tenure as governor.

But perhaps you can supply further details, to show me what I may have "missed," as a concerned (and conservative) citizen of this Commonwealth.

In short, I just get the feeling that "you guys" are making up "stuff" as you go along.


Governor Romney's Climate Protection Plan

Gore Praises Romney's 'Climate Protection Plan'

Romney: Earth is warming, emissions cuts needed

Exclusive: New information on Romney’s views on global warming (July 23, 2011)

Letter to NY Gov. Pataki stating he is working towards a "flexible market-based regional carbon cap and trade system"
35 posted on 05/26/2012 12:24:01 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
4. [Romney] Implemented an “Assualt” Weapons ban.

This is news to me. Of course, in Massachusetts, an "assault weapon" is any "scary looking" firearm, including child's toys. All firearms are "scary" to your average person living in Massachusetts — particularly among some of my dear women friends....


2004: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts's history of gun control advocacy. In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws. While in office, Governor Romney supported the Brady bill and a waiting period because it was necessary to complete...
36 posted on 05/26/2012 12:29:29 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; xzins; P-Marlowe; napscoordinator; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head
Be carefull of how you judge this man; for the elements of your judgment will assuredly redound on you personally, on the Day to come....

We have our Lord's promise with respect to precisely this matter....


It is exactly that reason, the Judgement Day, and how God will judge my actions and whether I have been honest both with myself and with others that compells me to be honest about Mitt Romney

It is for the same reasons that I cannot vote for Mitt Romney, and in addition, because he continually and serially lies, both about his own record and about his Republican opponents.

John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

37 posted on 05/26/2012 12:39:05 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Just, dang.

I looked in my “Shorter Oxford” two volume set for “eloquent”. Your picture was there.


38 posted on 05/26/2012 5:26:40 AM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins; SoConPubbie; P-Marlowe; napscoordinator; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; wmfights; ...
Do you consider Romney to be a conservative?

I would characterize Romney as right-of-center on the political spectrum. Thus he is NOT a man of the Left. Neither is he as conservative as I am, or you are. His preferred governing style is consensus-building as the most efficacious way to get things done. I believe he sees politics as the art of the possible, not as the art of constructing a doctrinally preferred "perfect world." (Which I suspect is what you and your group of like-minded Romney detractors is seeking.)

In short, he is a political realist, not any kind of ideologist.

Plus he is a man who extends genuine kindness and respect toward others, which you are absolutely blind to. I consider him to be a good man, a man of upright character. I don't think he is a serial liar; I think you take his statements out of context, thus to justify calling him a liar. I simply do not recognize the person you describe as the real Mitt Romney.

So of course I do not consider him "dangerous." What we have in the Oval Office now IS dangerous. Terribly, fearsomely dangerous. And I worry that, thanks to people like you, that man will be re-elected to a second term as President of the United States.

FWIW.

39 posted on 05/26/2012 8:18:39 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Thanks KC for your very kind words.


40 posted on 05/26/2012 8:21:36 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

WOW! Very true and well stated.


41 posted on 05/26/2012 8:23:35 AM PDT by unique1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

No it isn’t.


42 posted on 05/26/2012 8:29:32 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Here is why I support the Constitution Party candidate...

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

G-d has turned this Nation over to sodomites because we have NOT acknowledged Him as Creator (Romans Chapter 1). The problem isn't with Christians that support Goode; it is with the people that support Obama. Deal with it.

43 posted on 05/26/2012 8:42:46 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You don’t consider him ‘dangerous’ because you have no problem with the country continuing down the path it is on. That is, more and more control over us from the nascent global government.

We have been presented with a non-choice as a candidate for the election. This is in keeping with the philosophy that there are ‘political elites’ and the MSM uses that term all the time because the public relations campaign to make America step away from freedom and to become completely ‘interdependent’ with the rest of the world. This goal has almost been achieved. We have changed from a ‘classless’ society to one with a ‘political class’ and ‘working class’ and an ‘unemployed class’. Sound like communism, doesn’t it?

‘Consensus building’ is a communist tool in the globalist playbook. It hurts individual rights because it creates policy based on group think, and peer pressure to get people to change their values or opinions. The homosexual agenda has made strides in our society through consensus building. Agenda 21 is entrenched in local governments through consensus building. In this technique ideas of right, wrong and morality are pushed out of the political process because they have no place in consensus.

This man is not opposing any of Obama’s policies. He’s not a marxist, but he answers to the same masters Obama does and it is not the loyal American citizen. Net result, is the global corporatist agenda will be furthered no matter which one is elected.


44 posted on 05/26/2012 9:10:18 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins

With apologies - where’s the beef on jobs? We’re talking some 25 million un/underemployed living off the government, not buying things and paying taxes. Goode becomes the same as Obama and Romney. Jobs should be everone’s #1 priority. With Goode its even playing second fiddle to tagged along on with immigration.


45 posted on 05/26/2012 9:28:13 AM PDT by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
This man is not opposing any of Obama’s policies. He’s not a marxist, but he answers to the same masters Obama does and it is not the loyal American citizen. Net result, is the global corporatist agenda will be furthered no matter which one is elected.

Well obviously, this is what you believe. But on what basis in fact?

What is your evidence that "he answers to the same masters Obama does?" That he is not himself a loyal American citizen who understands that, when in political office, one is directly accountable to American citizens for all his public acts?

I haven't noticed that George Soros or the various organizations spawned by Soros' money are Romney contributors in this election cycle or ever before.

Here's a scenario: Do you believe that Obama would or would not sign the upcoming Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST") if the Senate passes it? (I understand a vote may come as early as two weeks from now.)

I believe Obama would sign it in a heartbeat, because it undermines American interests and power in the world.

But I also believe that Romney would not sign it, for the very same reasons. I believe Romney, unlike Obama, truly loves his country. He is a champion of free markets and our capitalist system generally.

I find your statement — "‘Consensus building’ is a communist tool in the globalist playbook" — totally risible. Free markets are based on consensus achieved as between market participants. Before our ideological era, consensus building was the way American politics got done.

You are worrying yourself about "Agenda 21." I am worried about four more years of Obama. Which appears to be the nearer threat by far.

It appears you are given to conspiracy theories. And are totally sucked in by them....

46 posted on 05/26/2012 9:53:20 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I wrote a lengthy reply that was eaten by the server troll that’s bothering FR right now.

If it shows up in the future, then you’ll find it enjoyable.

I don’t see how anyone can find Romney to be anything but a liberal. Proof: within the last month he came out in support of “gay adoption by gay couples”. He slightly back-pedaled when he decided states could violate nature and force this cultural debilitator on us but not the fed.

What kind of “gay couple” would be “adopting” kids, Sister Betty? How is that not entirely a violation of nature, an affront to Nature’s God, and a sign of great confusion?


47 posted on 05/26/2012 5:33:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of Our Troops Pray they Win every Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
That he is not himself a loyal American citizen who understands that, when in political office, one is directly accountable to American citizens for all his public acts?

Yes I mean that. His Massachusetts Climate Protection plan is proof of his lack of loyalty to America and his disdain for American citizens. It is complete with textbook examples of Agenda 21 policies from smart growth to transportation hub housing ( also favored by the former soviet union) 'green energy' and on and on. This policy was derived from internationalist organizations such as ICLEI ( creating local agenda 21 branches of the UN in state and county governments). He touts the Kyoto Protocol in his plan, a patently anti American piece of garbage.

The people of Massachusetts didn't band together to force him to produce a climate plan, so he is not accountable to them for it. But he his accountable to his globalist donors and gladly took this global garbage through executive order to undermine the Constitutional Republic.

No he'll never be accountable to the citizens of Massachusetts and he will never pay any consequence for the corruption his communist inspired climate plan has done to erase government structure established by the Constitution and implement a United Nations 'framework' in its place.

I am sure you know all this about the man, and given that he wrote an executive order to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is proof enough to me that he will work to implement the LOST as well.

I am sure you know this too. Why may I ask would you want to elect a man that uses the power of his office to implement UN policies? Is the UN his power base? Certainly an individual citizen is not, because he is stripping citizens of their birthright to self government.

And yes, consensus building is a tool the communists use because the outcome is predetermined by the leader of the consensus. Its just like counting the votes until your candidate wins, like they did for Al Franken.

Its a shame you pulled out Alinsky to defend your candidate. It somewhat surprised me to see how much United Nations communist jargon could be written into a governors order. Cowards like Sam Farr say they are for Agenda 21, implement the policies, fly the UN flag at their office then turn around and tell constituents he doesn't know what they are talking about if they bring Agenda 21 up. But, I'll have to say thank you, now I know the true color of this fake American Mitt Romney, the Republican party is pushing into the candidacy. It's his history and cannot be undone.
48 posted on 05/26/2012 9:54:20 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan signed by Mitt Romney

GUIDE MUNICIPALITIES TO THINK AND ACT REGIONALLY Each of the Commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns will be encouraged to tally and take account of the impacts that infrastructure – roads, sewer lines, water mains, utility lines, and so forth – has on that community’s climate change profile. The state will provide tools to help regional planning agencies evaluate energy conservation as part of the planning and environmental review process for municipal programs. EOEA and DOER will work with transportation agencies, regional planning bodies, and cities and towns to ensure that the energy-use effects of land use and transportation decisions are appropriately disclosed on a project-by-project basis. For example, CO2 has been proposed by EOTC to be part of the evaluation criteria for transportation project funding.

Here is an absolutely unconstitutional goal for his climate plan. Regional governments are unconstitutional, regional planning for land use robs property owners of control of their private property. . Citizens have no representation in regional bodies, but the communist and corporatist interests do.

In that same section, he references the United Nations subsidiary, ICLEI, and promises that he will use the power vested in him by the state of Massachusetts to support this corrupting globalist body within his state.

You actually made me think, OMG! I had no idea what a UN skunk Rommey was til I read his climate change plan, all thanks to your unsubstantiated claim about his loyalty to this country.
49 posted on 05/26/2012 10:12:21 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In short, he is a political realist, not any kind of ideologist.

Is his political reality that the United States must lose its independence? Because that's what his UN Kyoto protocol policy implementations imply.

The push for global governance is an ideology, so I dispute your comment.
50 posted on 05/26/2012 10:16:31 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson