Posted on 07/03/2012 12:09:58 PM PDT by Perdogg
In the days since the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, some Democrats and commentators in the press have suggested that Mitt Romney is declaring a “cease-fire” on the issue and will no longer make it a centerpiece of his campaign to defeat President Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Irrelevant; Congress is the entity that makes the budget and procures funding.
He has promised he will gut our nuclear arsenal, take away our tactical advantage in Europe (promise to Putin), and is gutting our military.
I'm not sure how viable some of those nukes are... have they reached their half-life? I'm not entirely sure we should stay in Europe, it could be a blessing in disguise to "abandon" Europe before the EU econ collapse. As for gutting our military, I have mixed feelings on that: the constitution clearly limits military appropriations (excepting navy, IIRC) to two year intervals -- the obvious intent there is that funding should be procured for specific campaigns commissioned to do achieve a particular goal. (e.g. defend border-settlements against Indian raids.)
He refuses to deport illegals, has just this past month declared children of illegals legal.
This can be alleviated by a Governor with a set of balls; interestingly, such could lead to treason charges against federal government officials.
He has decided to have a not so subtle race war and let Mexico win it on our border. He has neutered the sovereign state of Arizona in it's quest to protect its border.
See the above.
He has looked the other way while our military secrets have been leaked by his cronies, destroying our ability to have a spy system.
If you're talking about manning, then I have to stick up for him in this much: he believed that he witnessed war-crimes and had a duty to report it.
The others are sadly with precedent; remember Clinton/Los Alamos/China?
He has clearly shown he hates all things American, debasing in every speech free enterprise and the good things in American life.
Irrelevant; a strong Congress would neuter him.
He is destroying the coal industry, prevented us from drilling in the gulf and off both coasts, he has stopped the pipeline from Canada, and frittered away tons of money on useless and wasteful "green" (meaning doesn't work) energy projects. If you think he won't ban fracking to destroy the miracle boom in the Dakotas you haven't been watching him.
Again, Congress could easily redress the problem: they created the EPA and they can destroy it.
He has commanded gays be in the military, and furthered their agenda as no other has ever come close to.
That's actually a fairly amusing statement. most gays I know have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude regarding government.
He has tried to undermine the second amendment in the most brutally horrid policy in Fast and Furious, attempting to promote border violence by the cartels in order to blame it on American gun laws. He has hidden the incriminating documents through an Attorney General who is absolutely corrupt, racist, and who will be there until we get rid of this administration.
it's far more serious than that: Fast and furious was a) unauthorized acts of war, b) treaty violation, c) domestic law violation (felonies, IIRC), d) State Sponsored Terrorism, e) Treason (aiding and supplying enemies of the Several States)... and Congress has not done much at all regarding most of those matters.
He has set off a ticking time bomb with Bambi care that we won't ever be able to stop if he wins. We have one more chance to undo that horrid law, and frankly to not take it would be to destroy our country.
again Congress's fault, though that'd be the 111th, IIRC.
Paranoid hyperbole? Good lord, that was a dense and stupid comment. I love Scott Walker, and hope he runs and wins, but there won't be much left for him to win by 2016. I could go on and on, this is a five minute list just off the top my head.
It looks like virtually all of these items could be solved by a good Congress. In fact a congress respecting the Cnstitution could impeach him for many actions, such as AZ.
This is the most destructive administration ever, your pretense that it isn't is silly, and they simply must be gotten rid of. To allow them the reigns of government once again or to think we can "control him" as a lame duck is delusional.
it is only destructive because, in the end, we are allowing it to be: 2nd Amendment.
Do what you wish, lad, but in the end it will only pan out to be a self absorbed snit.
ObamaCARE ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Bad Governing ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Gay Marriage with no Vote ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Open Borders ====>ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
BIG DIG Coverup ====>SOLE ROMNEY PROBLEM
TARP ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Wall St. ====> SOLE ROMNEY PROBLEM
Lying to the Public ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Thinks himself a diety ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Ignores Constitutions ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Ignores Laws ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Work with Soros ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Flip Flops ====> SOLE ROMNEY PROBLEM
Panders to Other Party ====> SOLE ROMNEY PROBLEM
Dog Abuse ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Uses the Media to Lie for Him ====> ROMNEY MEANS THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Go read up on HOW GB became Reagan’s VP.
“Wrong. His logic only works with two relatively conservative candidates.”
He’s right, your wrong. Your attempt to argue with William F Buckley who is long gone is lame, and calling Romney ‘far left’ is insane.
There is nothing ‘conservative’ about bashing the only viable alternative to the most leftwing president in our history.
“Wrong. His logic only works with two relatively conservative candidates.”
He’s right, your wrong. Your attempt to argue with William F Buckley who is long gone is lame, and calling Romney ‘far left’ is insane.
There is nothing ‘conservative’ about bashing the only viable alternative to the most leftwing president in our history.
No, the failed policies of George W. Bush gave us both a Democratic Congress and Obama.
Romney is even more liberal and untrustworthy and the outcome is going to be the same or worse than it was under Bush -- more liberal legislation that fails and leads to Democrats regain power. Wash, rinse and repeat.
1) The national debt will increase and President Romney will sign off several "bipartisan" measures to reduce the debt such as asking the rich to pay more in taxes and, perhaps, a VAT tax.
2) President Romney will also seek a "bipartisan" solution to problem of illegal immigration, agreeing to continue the construction of a border fence in exchange for amnesty for the 11 million illegal presently in the nation.
3) President Romney will seek to solve the problem of climate change with legislation that reduces carbon emissions.
4) Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will retire and be replaced by Romney with judges in the John Roberts and David Souter mold and the court will move to the left as a result.
And, people like you will piss and moan about being betrayed and holding the Republicans feet to the fire. Then, after promising to hold Republicans accountable, you'll end up voting for more Republicans like Romney, convincing yourself they are better than Democrats.
Eventually, the nation will collapse like the Roman Empire did.
Buckley’s logic no longer applies. We have 2 libs and no conservatives.
That’s documented reality. If he were to say that one should vote for a lib in any capacity , yes, he would be wrong. As you are.
“No, the failed policies of George W. Bush gave us both a Democratic Congress and Obama.”
Megabump!
Being a global socialist is not 'more conservative' than being a Marxist. There is *no* Conservatism involved in either one.
I know exactly how. And if it were today you’d be accusing Reagan of not being a true conservative, but you just can’t see that.
Yea I already burned the entire shelf of books on him I read repeatedly over that Damn liberal Reagan turning his back on us from the grave. I also entered a program to have 30 years of studying him stricken from my memory. and petitioned the court to have my vote invalidated.
I can’t say in public how I defaced the DVDs.
>> “Political arrangement” is most often code-word ...
You’re going a long way to misrepresent my post.
It’s to the advantage of nascent life to have all 3 Houses. And no, I’m not talking about Monopoly property.
Given the Republican-party's sterling reputation for going after its stated platform planks and not "going along to get along" you must be completely right.
[/sarc][/cynic]
There will be more Pro-Life people surrounding a Romney Administration than the Obama Administration. Deny that fact to the peril of embryonic and elder Life.
>> Romney is even more liberal and untrustworthy
No doubt, but I don’t agree the outcome will be the same or worse. Congress has improved and the constituency will have greater influence over the process; unless the constituency decides to cede responsibility after the election.
The next 4 years will be extremely difficult. I think it will be slightly better without Obama. I don’t want to put that slight advantage at risk in order to pin a failed 2nd term on the Marxist. Continuing with Obama is not an option in my opinion. He and the media will hold Congress responsible for deadlock creating a problem for the Congressional GOP in 2014.
If the goal is to elect Obama, than it should be stated.
You asked a question, with a promise to support Romney if it was answered. I answered it and now you welsh on your promise. National Review has endorsed Romney, which is what Buckley would have done, and what most sane conservatives are doing. You have no logic, except for the twisted illogic of perfectionist myopia, and are arguing against common sense and reality, making up facts to suit your predetermined conclusions.
Good luck with that second Obama term. Hope you enjoy it.
“I think it will be slightly better without Obama. I don’t want to put that slight advantage at risk in order to pin a failed 2nd term on the Marxist. Continuing with Obama is not an option in my opinion.”
Indeed..We must get rid of the Obamanation.
When Romney wins the election and is in office next year. Will he prosecute Eric Holder and Obama for breaking the law (fast and the furious) and then covering it up behind executive privilege?
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.