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

Skip to comments.

ObamaCare Survives - Electing Romney Just Became Imperative
Townhall.com ^ | June 30, 2012 | Bob Beauprez

Posted on 06/30/2012 8:36:03 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Supreme Court did not save us from ourselves, at least not entirely. That is still up to us, the people.

When the American people elected Barack Obama and large Democrat majorities, the die was cast. ObamaCare was coming. Popular or not, constitutional or not, affordable or not, it didn't matter. They were going to pass it, and then the rest of us could find out what they put in it.

After the Democrats shoved the 2700 pages of ObamaCare down our throats -- and we did find out how expensive, controlling, and coercive the legislation was -- a majority of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to toss it aside as unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court did not deem it a legal overreach by the Democrats. While I would have agreed with the minority (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy), I respect the decision.

For those of us who originally disagreed with ObamaCare and now disagree with the majority opinion of the SCOTUS, the challenge remains the same as it would have been had the Court ruled otherwise. We need to elect Mitt Romney and House and Senate majorities that will repeal ObamaCare and replace it with free-market, pro-liberty solutions.

In a very real way, the Court just put the responsibility back on the voters to re-establish government of, by, and for the people. In the end, we get the government – and policies that go with it – that we deserve. So, who will we elect as our representative leaders in November? The importance of this election – already historic – just grew even greater.

As the nation absorbs and deciphers the SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare, we thought our readers would find the following excerpts from NRO's analysis insightful.  Included is a link to the entire editorial. 

Chief Justice Roberts’s Folly

Posted June 28, 2012, 2:00PM-ET

National Review Online

By The Editors 

…Rarely has the maxim that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.

What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law repeatedly speaks in terms of a “requirement” to buy insurance, it says that individuals “shall” buy it, and it levies a “penalty” on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent points out, these are the hallmarks of a “regulatory penalty, not a tax.”…

It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for its replacement by something better than either it or the health-care policies that preceded it…Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.  Read more.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012issues; abortion; conservativesfrobama; deathpanels; elections; iwontvoteforromney; obama; obamacare; obamunism; romney; romney4bothsides; romney4mandates; romney4statism; romneywas1st; scotus; taxes; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: Cringing Negativism Network
Pick Romney now, then vote for someone else next time.

No Lucy I won't kick again. I'm not Charlie Brown.

We’ve seen what Obama does, and it is ALL BAD.

Oh I see and so now we must unite and say Romneys Socialism is good? Hypocrites! You either believe in your faith, moral convictions, and political values enough to stick by them no matter what or they are up for sale. I'll vote in faith. Faith moves mountains. But to act in faith it takes making the right choices to start with. Two equal wrongs or even one lesser wrong such as Obama and Romney will never make things right.

101 posted on 06/30/2012 1:53:56 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Give it up. Your repetitive posts especially with all the images are slowing Freerepublic servers down and costing freerepublic money as to serve each page costs $. Your repetitive spamming posts just make me angrier and more determined to vote against Obama. Obama must pay you well.
102 posted on 06/30/2012 1:55:36 PM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
My faith says I cannot vote for someone who is pro abortion and pro gay marriage. That leaves Goode. My obligation is to support the candidate who is closest to what I believe. If the Republicans want to win they ought to nominate someone who is prolife and a supporter of traditional marriage. If they lose as a consequence to nominating Romney - my hands are clean. I supported Santorum. Did what I could to get him in.

AMEN and Preach it even though they refuse to listen. My vote goes to Goode.

103 posted on 06/30/2012 1:57:38 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Thanks. I’m glad some others can figure out the truth.

Don’t let these rabid , anti-romney ,spamming, Obamabotsget to you!


104 posted on 06/30/2012 1:58:37 PM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Thanks. I’m glad some others can figure out the truth.

Don’t let these rabid , anti-romney ,spamming, Obamabots get to you!


105 posted on 06/30/2012 1:59:00 PM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Well we haven’t seen Mitt in a conservative role, because we haven’t seen Mitt in a conservative job.

He’s been in Massachusetts.

I’m willing to give him a four-year try out, under determined consistent conservative appraisal.

(given that conservative appraisal itself, is changing)

I’m guessing he may not live up to that challenge, and we’ll need to vote someone else in next time.

Maybe. But Romney (highly) beats Obama.

No contest.


106 posted on 06/30/2012 2:03:36 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

>> If the GOP wants to put Romney in, theyll do it without me.

You’d rather have a Leftwing Marxist as the CIC than a flip-flopping Moderate?

What’s the difference between a purist and a moderate? In the final analysis, nothing.


107 posted on 06/30/2012 2:07:10 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

If you live in Louisiana, you shouldn’t worry. Romney should do better than Obama there.


108 posted on 06/30/2012 2:08:11 PM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

>> You either believe in your faith, moral convictions,

My moral responsibility is to vote Obama out of his position as CIC.


109 posted on 06/30/2012 2:14:23 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; Gene Eric
Mitt is either Conservative or he isn't. His political record says he isn't. Not on social nor fiscal issues. Being the governor of Massachusetts was no excuse. Did someone hold a gun to his head and say you will preform a gay marriage? Well did they?

All Romney will accomplish is what GW Bush accomplished. Carrying the DEMs water and take the GOP further left. I refuse to be his or any other Liberals enabler. I don't buy alcoholics booze, drug addicts their drugs, nor will I even defend family members when they have done wrong and show no remorse or change of heart. If I won't do the above then I sure won't give any Libral my vote.

Definition of ENABLER : one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior

110 posted on 06/30/2012 2:47:02 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rurgan
RomneyCARE is very bad. You do not like the truth, Mr. Romney.


Emergency room visits grow in Mass. New insurance law did not reduce number of users
The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts,
despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use."


Back to the ObamaCare Future (price controls in Massachusetts)
Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for
ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard
price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have
the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill
that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician
groups and some specialty providers.

It doesn't even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending"


"The Huge Middle Class Tax Increase Coming Our Way With ObamaCare
The former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, warns today on the effect ObamaCare
will have on our economy and health care. These facts should be painfully obvious to
those with even one iota of common sense. This bill will lead to a huge middle class tax increase:
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle
class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that
failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of
health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the
gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would
not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much
faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate
as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell
the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate
did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will
make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. "


"DEATH PANELS OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS
In August Sarah Palin wrote extensively about the incredible danger that ObamaCare
would lead to what amounts to "death panels." This of course caused great controversy
with many claiming Palin was either "crazy" or talking about the "end of life"
discussions that were provided for within House Resolution 3200, the prototype
ObamaCare bill.
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan
that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is
dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of
health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care
will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the
most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The
America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can
decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. .
Now we have news from Massachusetts, the home of RomneyCare, which should be
looked at as a shining example of why ObamaCare will be an epic failure. Soaring costs
both to the taxpayers and patients was inevitable, and now the effects of these are coming home to roost.
You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way,"


"You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way," said Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.

The state's ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price
for patients: Controlling Massachusetts' soaring medical costs, many health care leaders
believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any
hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost
hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital
care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance
policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ."


"State plan may place limits on patients' hospital options( Mass. RomneyCare )"


"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts [Romneycare]
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for
Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its
typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this
year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made
our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we
neither need nor want-or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan-we
would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-
care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).

We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We
always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't
carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular
monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns
a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable
energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not
wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws? "


"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."


A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.


Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America [Romney brings Mass. to its knees]
The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.

Sedalia, Colo. - In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted
healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and
improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing
"Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health
insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a
utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite -
skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what
constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for
special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required
package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither
need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment -
raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory
insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. ."


"'Severe' doc shortage seen hiking wait time The Boston Herald ^ | 9/15/09 | Christine McConville As the state's shortage of primary care doctors grows, people are waiting longer for medical care, according to a new survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society. "The shortage is getting more severe," said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical society's president. The state's health care dilemma can serve as a valuable lesson for a nation whose residents are locked in a frenzied debate about health care reform, he added."


"Health costs to rise again.( RomneyCare )
The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year,
prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law
passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In
addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein
in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears
about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."


"Nation's ill-advised to follow Mass. plan [Health plan a failure]
September 17, 2009 The canary is dead.
Massachusetts, the model for the ObamaCare universal insurance plan, is the canary in
the health care coal mine. Yesterday, its obit appeared on the front page of both The Wall
Street Journal and The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Both papers reported that our Commonwealth Care reform isn't working as planned. A
new law that was supposed to control costs and drive prices down (sound familiar?) has
instead sent costs soaring. "



"Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country - Boston Globe August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country,
according to a new analysis that highlights the state's challenge in trying to rein in medical costs
after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...
The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation,
showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008,
40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent..."


"Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare
Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete
with individual mandates and a government plan.
Cato calls it an "almost perfect" mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care - that failed in both respects:
Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …


"Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times [RomneyCare]
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts.
In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
.... Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average
in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans.
"


"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state's marquee universal health care program afloat financially.

The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where "patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization."
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would "dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care."
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that "consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system." Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.


"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...


"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

0What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional. P

111 posted on 06/30/2012 2:56:14 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

112 posted on 06/30/2012 3:38:09 PM PDT by Lady4Liberty (Watch Romney DESTROY Obama at his own game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYvx4UfM8RA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Anything can be filibustered.”

If that were true then how was Obamacare passed with 56 Dem votes.There are exceptions If the bill is couched in terms of a financial reconciliation bill then a simple majority was needed. The Dems practiced chicanery in passing the bill as if it were a financial reconciliation bill. If you live by the sword you die by the sword should the Republicans decide to use the same ploy to repeal it.


113 posted on 06/30/2012 3:57:35 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup

By the waters of Babylon we laid down and wept for thee, Zion.


114 posted on 06/30/2012 3:58:52 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (they have no god but caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

I hate the Marxist, POS Obama and the media more than anything.


Yes, of course but I can’t help but think what could have been..what should have been.
Romney knows how to destroy his opponents, which have been all Republicans so far, and now hopefully he uses that same tactic on Obama and friends.
Hopefully, he doesn’t cave once he becomes President,too.


115 posted on 06/30/2012 4:12:47 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
If you were God, what would you do?

Keep sending Obama until the People turned back to me.
Oh, wait, he is. We can choose between african-Obama and white-Obama.

116 posted on 06/30/2012 5:10:48 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

>> Definition of ENABLER: one that enables another to achieve an end;

So by not supporting the GOP candidate, you’re tacitly enabling the Left. I’m not being clever, that’s the outcome.

The premise we have no control over the process other than to destroy it is insane. Regardless of Romney’s candidacy, we should be working equally hard to take back the Republican party. What makes you think that through destruction things will improve? The majority may acclimate to the Obama environment, and that will only make things more difficult.


117 posted on 06/30/2012 5:29:31 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

“You’d rather have a Leftwing Marxist as the CIC than a flip-flopping Moderate?”

I’d rather have neither. That’s why I’m supporting Goode.

“What’s the difference between a purist and a moderate? In the final analysis, nothing.”

What’s the difference between a moderate and a communist? Speed limit.


118 posted on 06/30/2012 5:30:48 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

I agree..I am taking my chances with Romney
BEAT THE OBAMANATION


119 posted on 06/30/2012 5:39:52 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

“I’d rather have neither. That’s why I’m supporting Goode.”

Ah.. but you will have Obama or Romney in the end..whether you choose to or not..
I am going to choose to take a chance on Romney .


120 posted on 06/30/2012 5:44:45 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; the invisib1e hand; sport; P-Marlowe

I will not vote for Obama or Romney. Both are anti-life, anti-natural marriage and family. Neither is a conservative.

I will vote only for conservatives. Ever again.

It is not possible to go forward by going backward.

If it were, then it would be possible to go forward faster by going backward faster.

That is irrationality.


121 posted on 06/30/2012 5:57:45 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Regardless of Romney’s candidacy, we should be working equally hard to take back the Republican party.

It's dead Gene. It was born shredding the Constitution with Lincoln and it has died doing same with Ford, Bush family, the supported friends in both houses of congress, and Romney. The picture in post 112 should tell you that the GOP is dead. Who is that socialist standing on the right side of Romney anyway? Could it be Teddy?

I am voting for the Conservative running for office. I am enabling no one. I do not give Mittsie my support or vote to do anything on my behalf nor Obama. So I am not enabling them in the least. I will support The Constitution Party in hopes it or one similar in platform replaces the GOP. It has to start somewhere and I support the Constitution party Platform.

Nothing Conservative elected office wise usually comes from the northeast Atlantic seaboard states. How ironic it is our nations freedoms were killed by ones coming from the very states our nation freedoms were born in.

But as long as the GOP has YOU and OTHER party loyalist to count on a straight ticket vote it has absolutely no reason to change does it? Of course it doesn't. Rove, Bushs, Graham, McConnell, Bohner, McCain, all know they can count on you to support them no matter how wrong they are.

122 posted on 06/30/2012 6:09:26 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

ObamaCare passed the Senate with 58 Dem votes and 2 independent votes.


123 posted on 06/30/2012 6:11:59 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obozo the clown is on the run.........

Today's email (June 30)

Barack Obama [info@barackobama.com]
Subject: This is important

Friend --

Today is one of the most important fundraising deadlines of this campaign so far.
We might not outraise Mitt Romney.

But I am determined to keep the margin close enough that we can win this election the right way.

To do that I need your help today.

Please donate $3 or more before tonight's deadline:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Tonight The stakes in this election are real. Thanks for all your support so far.

Good week.

Barack


He must mean by "win this election the right way" is to purchase this election off the backs of all the little sheeple. Can it be his Hollyweird funds have dried up - I thought the celebrity candidate was going to be propped up with star money??
124 posted on 06/30/2012 6:38:22 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If it were, then it would be possible to go forward faster by going backward faster.

bump!

it's certainly easier to go backwards, isn't it?

125 posted on 06/30/2012 6:39:49 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (they have no god but caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Think long and hard people on your choice. GHW Bush was so Liberal that Clinton managed to run right of him. GW Bush nearly lost not once but twice and he as well took the party and the nation further left. If Al Gore had not been tarnished by Clinton Bush would have lost by a landslide. Why? Because even Gore was running to the right of Bush.

GW Bush helped set the precedents and programs Obama has used against us these past four years and the same ones cheering Romney supported Bush setting those dangerous precedents as well.

What will be the spawn of the Devil Democrat to take office after Mitts term do we have to look forward too after he takes us even further left? When will the GOP finally draw a line in the sand? I don't see it ever happening. The DEMs control the GOP Primaries as does the media.

We do have the Internet and we do have a conservative running for POTUS. The GOP was literally born and POTUS elected in about one election cycle. That was with no modern media. But NO. Some insider Thugs in DC tell you that someone is not electable and it's Oh well then I guess we have to vote for Romney then. Whew that was easy pass the Pork please.

I will not ever again support the Liberal side of the GOP. I don't care what threats, what this means that, a vote for that person is a vote for someone else Moronic games ones want to play.

As I recall in 2000 a significant number of GOP workers signed up their membership here. It wasn't to promote Conservatism it was to support GW Bush. As a result many who were honest to goodness bonifide Conservatives got banned. I remember that well. I remember ones like Illbay who made sure people got banned and Conservatives ridiculed. You folks had your chance eight years and the results we saw Thursday. I'm not playing your stupid party loyalty games.

I want real Conservative change and Constitutional restoration in government. I'll vote for ones offering it. I want abortions stopped and I'll only vote for those who will end abortion. I want Gay Marriage ended before our nation falls and no I will not vote for a liberal former governor who married Fagots and Lesbian's despite the magical-R. Is that loud and clear enough for some now?

126 posted on 06/30/2012 6:40:54 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Your freedom to vote as you choose is one we all have..
I choose to vote to defeat Obama..and conservative downticket.


127 posted on 06/30/2012 6:45:19 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

>> Rove, Bushs, Graham, McConnell, Bohner, McCain, all know they can count on you to support them no matter how wrong they are.

And that is evident given my final primary support for Newt, and critical opinions of those fellows?

My position on Life and Liberty is unambiguous. I’m a small govt, Pro-Life, Conservative Libertarian (opposed to being a Conservative Statist).

I want the most effective Conservative machine possible in 2013. I don’t envision Obama as a component of that machine.

FRegards.


128 posted on 06/30/2012 7:06:36 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
And that is evident given my final primary support for Newt, and critical opinions of those fellows?

Newt could have possibly won had he started running about six years ago and first holding office again. He really neded to be a governor or even congressman again. After what he did then popping up out of the blue saying well here I am now trust me was a bit too much too expect.

I would have had far more respect for the man had he taken his punishment and stayed in congress. We all can fall. REPENTANCE would have kept him in office instead of the collapse of The Contract With America his resignation set off. BTW the wife of one who ran Newt out of town was a Key speaker at the 1996 GOP Convention Susan Molinari and the wife of Bill Paxon-R-NY? You might want to read this This was when the Conservative GOP lost control of the party completely and never recovered. Wiki list Paxon as being a Conservative but I really don't think so LOL.

If he would not stand up to even Boehner then would he stand up to the DEMs? Newts own speeches on Global Warming and photo op with nancy the past couple years didn't help him politically either. He's way too impulsive. He's smart likely a genius but lacks discipline not to act of the first thing that comes to his mind. That in turn cost him his chance for POTUS.

129 posted on 06/30/2012 7:33:59 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Newt was only another piece of confetti in the wind tunnel that Sarah Palin’s declining to run created.


130 posted on 06/30/2012 7:37:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Newt was only another piece of confetti in the wind tunnel that Sarah Palin’s declining to run created.

Yea more or less. If she had no intention of running I wish she had announced it a lot earlier. The GOP had a couple of great conservative contenders that might have been persuaded to run. Newt this time around? I look back to when Fred ran rest election. McCain his buddy stepped up and Fred like the committee hearings suddenly lost interest in it. It's as if some are asked by the party to run to be place holders for someone else so too speak.

Newt could have done it but like I said he had a lot to prove first to re earn trust. Holding a national office again at least one term should have been his first step before a presidential bid.

131 posted on 06/30/2012 7:57:40 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: xzins

See attached link reference to budget reconciliation bills requiring a simple majority

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/mcconnell-ill-repeal-obamacare-as-majority-leader-127753.html


132 posted on 06/30/2012 7:59:44 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Agreed 100%.

Sarah if by some isolated chance you ever read this post, read others around this. It speaks exactly to everything I have thought and felt this time around.

You (were) it. What changed, I’ll never know. I am vaguely holding onto some last bit of hope you’ll be on the ticket this year.

Otherwise, I’ll still go with Romney.
Plan B.

Not exactly liking it.


133 posted on 06/30/2012 8:06:03 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Or Plan C LOL an oldie I remember http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se6tPt34mRI


134 posted on 06/30/2012 8:30:14 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I don’t envision Obama as having a place in the future either. Many other conservatives share this opinion. It’s a small number of vocal FReepers who hate Romney so bad they’ll essentially vote for Obama. In my opinion they are out of step with what’s best for America.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/rick-santorum-formally-endorses-mitt-romney/

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gingrich-endorse-Romney/2012/05/06/id/438132

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/30/rush-to-newt-stop-whining-about-negative-campaigning/

http://www.southerngospel.com/Family/Parenting/11567415/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/christie-to-endorse-romney-for-president/

Sarah Palin? firmly ABO

Clearly the stakes are so high that all these patriots are pointing in the same direction


135 posted on 06/30/2012 8:31:46 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Good profile there on Newt. He indeed was run out of town by the same breed of schmucks still causing problems today.

His post-congressional dalliances with the various lib causes was foolish, and he deserved every bit of criticism received. I do believe, however, that given the directive, he’d follow through as a reliable Conservative perhaps for only a single term. He tends to wander.


136 posted on 06/30/2012 8:43:35 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
God helps those who help themselves.

That's not a phrase found anywhere in the Bible. In any case, we are not the ones (conservatives, patriots, pro-Americans, born again Christians, etc) who elected 0dumb0 or the demoRATs.

The liberals, atheists, perverts, 98% of blacks, 76% of Jews, muslims, socialists, communists, etc., are the ones who elected 0dumb0, Hollywood liberals & dumb-ass ignorant liberals are the ones who elected 0dumb0.

I'm not blaming God for the consequences of my decisions. I didn't make the stupid decisions to vote for 0dumb0 or any demoRAT for that matter in the first place.

And yes, I'm going to vote for Romney because the consequences of seeing 0dumb0 win this coming election, will be a hellish nightmare that we will never recover from.

137 posted on 06/30/2012 8:52:46 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: xzins

We incrementally got where we are. We need to incrementally get back to what is right.

Anything else is irrationality.


138 posted on 06/30/2012 8:55:49 PM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup

I never said I was quoting from the Bible, but it’s still true. “God helps those who help themselves” — we all understand its meaning. We were given free will and intelligence and it’s expected that we use it.

“And yes, I’m going to vote for Romney because the consequences of seeing 0dumb0 win this coming election, will be a hellish nightmare that we will never recover from.”

Glad to see your realize the consequences of an Obama second term. I agree and wish others would open their eyes to see this.


139 posted on 06/30/2012 9:03:35 PM PDT by Innovative (None are so blind that will not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

I understand the contempt, but don’t agree with the reasoning.

More or less, I see my relationship with the GOP as an imperfect alliance. We have a mutual adversary, and in the practical sense need to work together to regain our footing. The GOP definitely abuses the relationship and deserves to be disciplined for it. But not now. We’re advancing on our opponents. What else is there to say?

Thanks for the links.


140 posted on 06/30/2012 9:11:59 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Pride can be a nasty thing.


141 posted on 06/30/2012 9:12:08 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
By the waters of Babylon we laid down and wept for thee, Zion.

Amen! And very sobering as well, as see the United States in the very same way as Israel (the 10 northern tribes hauled off to captivity by the Assyrians) or Judah (the two tribes) hauled off to Babylon in 3 deportations. Our nation was founded on Biblical values & principles, and Satan has been actively trying to destroy our nation ever since, through the demoRAT party & liberals & secular humanists.

God help our nation. We are now in the final stages. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

142 posted on 06/30/2012 9:14:55 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

>> incrementally

An unattractive fact.

We need to spend more time on the ground making changes locally. We need to teach Liberty at the local level.


143 posted on 06/30/2012 9:21:36 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Good profile there on Newt. He indeed was run out of town by the same breed of schmucks still causing problems today. His post-congressional dalliances with the various lib causes was foolish, and he deserved every bit of criticism received. I do believe, however, that given the directive, he’d follow through as a reliable Conservative perhaps for only a single term. He tends to wander.

Really his issues as Speaker could have been an outcome a lot worse. When you privy to national security your personal behavior matters. You can't allow your conduct to make you a target for extortion or blackmail. It's not what's known publicly about someone that's the danger it's what the public doesn't know that's the enemies weapon.

During that era a lot of personal info on a lot of persons was in the hands of some who may have chosen to use it. I'm just saying the reality of it and the danger.

144 posted on 06/30/2012 10:13:37 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I couldn’t agree with you more! The other candidates had their excellent aspects but we all watched them rise and then implode, one by one.
Romney, while not a FReeper’s first choice made it strongly to the finish line. It is pure fantasy to think any one of the others didn’t get a fair shake, lost unfairly and could do better at beating Obama. How’s that if they couldn’t even whip Mitt Romney?
All the carping about Mitt not playing fair? wasted breath. That would only be multiplied times 10 with Obama’s dirty lying machine from Chicago. The man who wanted it,prepared for it and executed the best is the one who won.


145 posted on 07/01/2012 4:55:05 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

>> The man who wanted it,prepared for it and executed the best is the one who won.

The Romney machine in cooperation with the GOP and FNC obviously succeeded, but on the stump, I much preferred Newt’s rhetoric. But that’s history now.

I woke up this morning with the realization the SCOTUS ruling wasn’t a nightmare — a sickening experience.

I know who Romney is, and I know the Marxist jackass is far worse.


146 posted on 07/01/2012 1:20:52 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

It’s far more common for a FReeper to have started out endorsing and contributing to a candidate other than Mitt Romney. I know I did, twice! Cain first, then Gingrich and now Romney. But rather than whine about the unfair primary process, I feel it worked.
What if Herman 9-9-9 had had that information about his female friend come out after the primaries, during the election? And as genius as Newt is, he couldn’t hold success together long enough to get the nomination. Sorry he’s a savant with some blind spots.


147 posted on 07/01/2012 6:32:26 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 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