It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:11 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
If you are going to judge every leader by his purity of doctrine, you might as well forget about Democracy in our Nation.
I'd be for getting rid of democracy. Repeal the amendment to elect Senators popularly. Limit voting privielges to land owners over 25, and only one vote per house or farm. How many of the problems we face now are rooted in people voting for politicians promising to steal something for them? Tyranny by the majority is still tyrany.

Personally, I don't care what Romney's socialism is rooted in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Machiavelli wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Romney gets his Socialist beliefs from his intense Mormon Background and Indoctrination. It is part and parcel of who the guy is in life. This aspect of Romney has as yet to be vetted, and should be done to control his socialist instincts.

Mormons do not use Tobacco, Caffeine, Alcohol, Gambling, and the abstention from each is how a Mormon demonstrates his adherence to his religion. Without adherence they do not achieve their goal of Temple Recommend and entry into becoming a God of Another Planet System.

Additionally, a Mormon sees Gun Control as a Good Thing...as "People" at the top can control people at the bottom....or they think they can and this is a Good Thing......That is what Cults are All About....So look to see erosion (Through increased Tax on Gun Ownership and Use, if not complete loss of our Rights to Bear Arms....just as the Dude did in Mass.

As well, the indoctrination process into Mormon uses "Group" dynamics to garner the demanded Tithe to the church. The Bishop of a given Ward/Temple expects the ENTIRE FAMILY to be present when the Tithe is determined and paid. Without the Tithe, once again the Temple Recommnend is not garnered by the failed Mormon in this area, and the "Secrets" of the Temple are not bestowed upon the up and coming Mormon.

The Mormon Church is central to the entire life of the Mormon.

As Romney's entire life has been spent in the Mormon Church, he naturally believes HIS way of LIFE and the MORMON WAY OF LIFE is what SHOULD be EVERY AMERICAN"S way of LIFE. Even if he verbally says it is not so, it is because it would be impossible to be true to his Religion without endorsing the Mormon Way of Life as his intent.

This presents a huge problem. As a result of this central theme of who Romney is, the American People can wait to see him endorse any and all LAWS that will control peoples behavior to match what he believes is the Best and Only Way of Life through his Religion of Mormon. Higher Tax to discourage conduct etc etc etc. which of course never works except to grow Government. You see, as Romney sees it....the Government Should Force People to get into lock step on such things as Mandated Healthcare Payments. That folks is why we are making a huge mistake with this Socialist. Not only is he a Socialist, he is a Mormon Socialist....

No thank you.....Mormon is a Cult.....driven by Men who "Think and Believe" they are Gods.....and want to be bigger and bigger Gods......Rather, they should be put in Jail for SELLING FALSE GODS .......not good......

ABO........wait and see my friends...this guy has even more Big Government in Mind.....supported and fostered by a False Religion.......

Revolution and/or Chaos is very very close.....my friends...


So the truth is revealed. His religion is what you detest. Do you realize how few Presidents we've had that are truly followers of Christ? So by your actions you feel that a secular humanist, perhaps radical Muslim, Communist, self worshipping Potus is better left in place than a mislead, cultist that believes in a higher power than himself and has shown to be a moral man.

If you are going to judge every leader by his purity of doctrine, you might as well forget about Democracy in our Nation. God is much bigger than your little box. When you rightfully divide the Word of God you'll see he has used leaders of all stripes to benefit His people.

There is a platform in formation here. Conservatives have made their points very clear. That is why leading Conservatives have not jumped ship. That is why Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and others are endorsing and working with Romney. Not only are they working to oust a Marxist Regimme, they are working to put together a Senate and Congress that will shape the new administration. At this time, the wise and prudent are calling for unity in this effort. Romney has never been an "idealogue". Successful businessmen are not. He will more than likely take a concensus of those around him.

So unless you are a Prophet, in the fashion of "Jeremiah", perhaps you should stop with the "end of the world" approach. A Prophet will receive a Prophets judgement. :wave:



+++++++++++++++++++

Such a Party Loyalist....lol.....

If you actually read the post....it is intended to "keep R" in Check....not destroy R........

Not a Prophet of course....Just doing what any common sense true Conservative should do...Including YOU.......if conseratives do their job......and VETT the guy......it stops the Crap...before it starts....or do ya want ANOTHER MASS.

Quit being stupid....Become and individual leader, rather than a Token loyal follower......you are much smarter than the former phrase.... :wave:


Party Loyalist? What options should I take otherwise? You answer! By my support of Bachman, then Cain, then Bachman then Santorum, you must know I struggled and contributed in time and money. Everytime I supported one, there were those that called me a liberal and socialist because I was not supporting theirs at that given time. Romney is not going to denounce his faith anytime soon. You are not vetting the guy. You are working to start a landslide of destruction that will surely, if heeded, give the Marxist another four years. If you want to keep Romney in check, you must 1st work for his election. It is important also that you work to support those that will make him accountable to a Conservative agenda.

By attacking Romneys Religion, how does that in anyway keep him in check? You know Harry Reid is Mormon. There are Mormons far at the other end of the spectim from that liberal of liberals! Mormonism is not the issue! It is getting a "coalition" of effective leaders to restore our individual liberty! I know, Machiavelli, we want the same results. We just differ on the most effective route.
Because I support Romney, does not make me a Socialist or Liberal as many on this thread directly say or suggest.....it's just childish!

Massachusetts and Kalifornia will continue in their Socialism long after the Nation is restored!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
If you are going to judge every leader by his purity of doctrine, you might as well forget about Democracy in our Nation.
I'd be for getting rid of democracy. Repeal the amendment to elect Senators popularly. Limit voting privielges to land owners over 25, and only one vote per house or farm. How many of the problems we face now are rooted in people voting for politicians promising to steal something for them? Tyranny by the majority is still tyrany.

Personally, I don't care what Romney's socialism is rooted in.


Actually, I agree with you that voting should be limited only to those that have a stake in the game...like our forefathers intended.
Also, drug testing for every "ward of the state" including goverment employees until entitlements are done away with. That is more of the "Republican" form of Democracy that was origionally intended. You don't pay taxes...you don't vote! That would eliminate probably 65% of Obamas base right there!

I just don't know how you intend to "turn the horse around" by giving Obama four more years! If Romney has a Socialist ounce in his body, he won't get any of that accomplished while surrounded with Conservatives feeding him his Pablum! What's your alternative?? :hm2:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
I just don't know how you intend to "turn the horse around" by giving Obama four more years! If Romney has a Socialist ounce in his body, he won't get any of that accomplished while surrounded with Conservatives feeding him his Pablum! What's your alternative?? :hm2:
Then Obama won't get any of that surrounded by Conservatives either. And you won't "turn the horse around" with Romney either. Did you know Romney also appointed that enviro nut Regina something-or-other that is at the EPA dreaming up the regulations designed to shut down coal-fired utility companies?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
I just don't know how you intend to "turn the horse around" by giving Obama four more years! If Romney has a Socialist ounce in his body, he won't get any of that accomplished while surrounded with Conservatives feeding him his Pablum! What's your alternative?? :hm2:
Then Obama won't get any of that surrounded by Conservatives either. And you won't "turn the horse around" with Romney either. Did you know Romney also appointed that enviro nut Regina something-or-other that is at the EPA dreaming up the regulations designed to shut down coal-fired utility companies?


So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:55 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Dixie
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


Ray Gun doesn't care about that... he wants to lead a Revolution! :whoa:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
barryhoff wrote:
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


Ray Gun doesn't care about that... he wants to lead a Revolution! :whoa:


I suspect Doctor Demento has offered him a 'commission', at least precinct captain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:48 pm
Posts: 13014
Location: People don't believe lies because they have to, but because they want to
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


The flaw in YOUR analysis is that you folks keep saying that a Republican led Congress will keep Romney in line.

IF true, then they should be able to do the same with Obamster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
grog wrote:
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


The flaw in YOUR analysis is that you folks keep saying that a Republican led Congress will keep Romney in line.

IF true, then they should be able to do the same with Obamster.

Titan made a couple of valid points that you choose to ignore (and I don't blame you.) However the premise laid down by R.G. is that Romney is a Socialist and Obama is a Communist. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the two, except under Communism the state owns EVERYTHING!! Since we are, under most definitions (and most definitely yours) a Socialist State already, Romney would be more likely to retain a status quo on the Supreme Court. Obama, on the other hand must continue to Nationalize industry, the banks, and Healthcare. Obama would need a radical change on the Supreme Court which he will get in four more years, So you guys go ahead and work toward your Armegeddon! Like Titan suggested, Captain Derange will make you all Colonels in his little army! :wave: maybe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:48 pm
Posts: 13014
Location: People don't believe lies because they have to, but because they want to
barryhoff wrote:
Titan made a couple of valid points that you choose to ignore (and I don't blame you.) However the premise laid down by R.G. is that Romney is a Socialist and Obama is a Communist. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the two, except under Communism the state owns EVERYTHING!! Since we are, under most definitions (and most definitely yours) a Socialist State already, Romney would be more likely to retain a status quo on the Supreme Court. Obama, on the other hand must continue to Nationalize industry, the banks, and Healthcare. Obama would need a radical change on the Supreme Court which he will get in four more years, So you guys go ahead and work toward your Armegeddon! Like Titan suggested, Captain Derange will make you all Colonels in his little army! :wave: maybe


I generally tend to skip Titan's posts as he is usually just regurgitating BoR's views or one of the other dimbulbs on fox.

You folks have said it is "ok" to vote for a socialist because we will have enough "conservative republicans" in Congress to keep him in check.
Again, if that is the case then this conservative republican congress can also axe any uber-lib SC appointments, right?
They could also impeach the sob for his use of czars and his other UN-Constitutional actions, right?

I imagine that will happen right around the time pigs learn to fly.


You guys can keep running to the Left if you want to, but there are lines that others will not cross.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:55 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Dixie
grog wrote:
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
So with you it is Romney= Obama. How many Conservativs will you win with that line? It's laughable!! :ha:
So, you've had to descend to putting words in my mouth? I have made it clear, for months. In my lexicon, Romney is a socialist. Obama is a Marxist. They are not equal. But I don't vote for socialists.

The point you avoided is actually a sound one. If as you contend, a conservative Congress is a check on Romney's leftism, it is also a check on Obama's.

If you think about it, if enough "conservatives" do what I suggest, there'll be another conservative landslide in Congress, but Romney will lose. That will send the appropriate message to the GOP establishment and lay the ground work for a conservative Pres candidate in 2016. That's why, if I may return to the thread title, I don't feel used by the GOP. They fully expect the rest of you to just bend over and take it like man.


The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.


The flaw in YOUR analysis is that you folks keep saying that a Republican led Congress will keep Romney in line.

IF true, then they should be able to do the same with Obamster.


You must have missed my comment on executive orders and SCOTUS appointments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Sorry Gartay....earlier I arreibuted your comments to Titan. They were good comments! :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
Ray Gun doesn't care about that... he wants to lead a Revolution! :whoa:
No. I want conservatives to wrest control of the Republicans from the RINO's. Electing a RINO President is not the way to accomplish it. That's how the liberals wrested control of the Democrats, by only voting for liberals.

If I weren't already 100 percent sure my game theory is right, the fact that you had to go ad hominem would have helped push me there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
Titan made a couple of valid points that you choose to ignore (and I don't blame you.) However the premise laid down by R.G. is that Romney is a Socialist and Obama is a Communist. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the two, except under Communism the state owns EVERYTHING!!
I think the difference that a socialist looks at the US as a Golden Goose and wants to control the goose and take the eggs. A Marxist wants to get control of the goose and then kill it.

That's why I keep saying, the biggest difference is that Romney will turn the oil spigots back on. But he still likes those high corporate taxes (which are paid by the consumers sooner than later).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Ray Gun wrote:
barryhoff wrote:
Titan made a couple of valid points that you choose to ignore (and I don't blame you.) However the premise laid down by R.G. is that Romney is a Socialist and Obama is a Communist. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the two, except under Communism the state owns EVERYTHING!!
I think the difference that a socialist looks at the US as a Golden Goose and wants to control the goose and take the eggs. A Marxist wants to get control of the goose and then kill it.

That's why I keep saying, the biggest difference is that Romney will turn the oil spigots back on. But he still likes those high corporate taxes (which are paid by the consumers sooner than later).


I agree with you definitions, but Romney knows he must lower the corporate tax rate!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
gartay wrote:
The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.
Only three? Why not all nine? And here I was worried, they'd be in the image of Ginsburg.

Actually, there is no flaw in my analysis. If conservatives had been voting the RINO's out in the primaries all along, judges like Ginsburg, former head of the ACLU, would never have been approved by a Republican-majority Senate.

And in whose image are Romney's appointees? As governor, only 1/3 of the judges he appointed were even Republican. I guess he had to be careful. Wouldn't want one of his own judges overturning his socialistic monstrosity, Obamneycare.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
I agree with you definitions, but Romney knows he must lower the corporate tax rate!
Did you read his 59-point plan? Romney proposes 28. Obama has already proposed 25.

FWIW, I think the ACOC has been transformed into the conservative Twilight Zone. Think about the sequence.
First, you are chiding me for coming too close to equating Romney and Obama.
Then, you try to defend Romney's virtue by mentioning reducing corporate tax rates.
And then I have to hit you with the fact that Obama is to the right of Obama on corporate tax rates.

And I be some who are implicitly and explicitly defending Romney's virtue at 28 percent, were trashing 9-9-9. :) (and Romneycare as conservative). Tell me this ain't the Twilight Zone.


Last edited by Ray Gun on Fri May 04, 2012 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:13 pm
Posts: 1696
Romney....

Just "Another" Skunk....who Con's the Rino's into believing BS....

Best thing for all is Revolution...........think about it.....Cleansing is a GOOD THING....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
Machiavelli wrote:
Romney....

Just "Another" Skunk....who Con's the Rino's into believing BS....

Best thing for all is Revolution...........think about it.....Cleansing is a GOOD THING....


The choices in November are...

Romney

Obama

Stay home (essentially an abstention)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:13 pm
Posts: 1696
titan wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Romney....

Just "Another" Skunk....who Con's the Rino's into believing BS....

Best thing for all is Revolution...........think about it.....Cleansing is a GOOD THING....


The choices in November are...

Romney

Obama

Stay home (essentially an abstention)


========================================================


Spoken like the True Loser and Follower of others that Titan insists upon being....what a joke....

LOSER IN MASSACHUSETTS CHARACTER....would rather DIE than submit to ANYONE including R or O telling me what I have to do............I am sooooooo Sorry for you Titan..... :wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
Machiavelli wrote:
titan wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Romney....

Just "Another" Skunk....who Con's the Rino's into believing BS....

Best thing for all is Revolution...........think about it.....Cleansing is a GOOD THING....


The choices in November are...

Romney

Obama

Stay home (essentially an abstention)


========================================================


Spoken like the True Loser and Follower of others that Titan insists upon being....what a joke....

LOSER IN MASSACHUSETTS CHARACTER....would rather DIE than submit to ANYONE including R or O telling me what I have to do............I am sooooooo Sorry for you Titan..... :wave:


Your namecalling has put you in a class limited to a few. We are sorry you are so paultarded! You want blood...and a war! You want anarchy because you don't have the backbone for hard work! There is hard work going on that you anarchists will have no part in. Socialism has been at work in America for longer than 50 years. It's not going to turn around overnight because you haven't got your way! Guess there are a lot of losers that will stay home and watch reality TV rather than vote. Makes you proud to be among them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:55 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Dixie
Ray Gun wrote:
gartay wrote:
The flaw in your analysis is that Obama will continue to ignore the Constitution with his czars and executive orders for four more years, not to mention appointing three more judges to SCOTUS in the image of Kagen and Sotomayer.
Only three? Why not all nine? And here I was worried, they'd be in the image of Ginsburg.

Actually, there is no flaw in my analysis. If conservatives had been voting the RINO's out in the primaries all along, judges like Ginsburg, former head of the ACLU, would never have been approved by a Republican-majority Senate.

And in whose image are Romney's appointees? As governor, only 1/3 of the judges he appointed were even Republican. I guess he had to be careful. Wouldn't want one of his own judges overturning his socialistic monstrosity, Obamneycare.


Obama didn't appoint Ginsberg, but he did appoint Kagen and Sotomayer. Romney has repeatedly said that Roberts and Alito are his prototype judges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
gartay wrote:
Obama didn't appoint Ginsberg, but he did appoint Kagen and Sotomayer.
You are missing the point. It is possible that K and S won't turn out to be as liberal as G. And more importantly, the RINO's voted to approve all of them, regardless of who appointed them. This is because conservatives have failed to boycott the Richard Lugars, worrying too much about each one election, telling themselves the Democrat is worse, rather than thining long-term and purging the RINO's.

Quote:
Romney has repeatedly said that Roberts and Alito are his prototype judges.
Romney has repeatedly said a lot of things, often on both sides of the same issue. Also, don't jump to conclusions about these two BEFORE the Obamacare decision.

Romney's history is liberal appointees. Name a single conservative Romney ever appointed to anything. The RINO Senate history is approving liberal appointees. The Supreme Court argument isn't the slam dunk you want to pretend it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
barryhoff wrote:
Socialism has been at work in America for longer than 50 years. It's not going to turn around overnight
It's less a matter of how soon it turns around, but whether it turns at all. What you are offer is basic insanity - electing Romney the Socialist to turn around socialism. Remember Romney the Great who "turned around" the Olympics? With a $400 million federal bailout. He is so sick, he actually campaigns on that as "private sector experience." As if collecting welfare is private sector experience.

The RINO machine is out attacking the conservative Congressional candidates, usually with expensive ad campaigns of lies; same thing they did with Romney in the primary. If conservatives don't break the back of RINO leadership by refusing to give it votes, ti will NEVER die. The Mourdocks aren't going to defeat the Lugars if the Romney-RINO's have anything to do with it. Romney will not be endorsing ANY of the conservative challengers to established RINO's.

You can't defeat the Dem agenda until after you defeat the RINO's. Otherwise, you don't even have a knife at a gunfight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
Machiavelli wrote:
titan wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Romney....

Just "Another" Skunk....who Con's the Rino's into believing BS....

Best thing for all is Revolution...........think about it.....Cleansing is a GOOD THING....


The choices in November are...

Romney

Obama

Stay home (essentially an abstention)


========================================================


Spoken like the True Loser and Follower of others that Titan insists upon being....what a joke....

LOSER IN MASSACHUSETTS CHARACTER....would rather DIE than submit to ANYONE including R or O telling me what I have to do............I am sooooooo Sorry for you Titan..... :wave:


I hope you don't lose any sleep feeling sorry for me.

I need to revise my list of November options, though.

The options in November are...

Romney

Obama

Stay home

Gary Johnson (probably LP nominee)

The libertarians will need to decide whether or not they hate Romney enough to help Obama get re-elected. They certainly could play the Ross Perot role in this election.


If you want a laugh or two, Google the libertarian presidential debate from last night. These guys are scary enough to be dangerous, in terms of re-electing Obama.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:55 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Dixie
Ray Gun wrote:
gartay wrote:
Obama didn't appoint Ginsberg, but he did appoint Kagen and Sotomayer.
You are missing the point. It is possible that K and S won't turn out to be as liberal as G. And more importantly, the RINO's voted to approve all of them, regardless of who appointed them. This is because conservatives have failed to boycott the Richard Lugars, worrying too much about each one election, telling themselves the Democrat is worse, rather than thining long-term and purging the RINO's.

Quote:
Romney has repeatedly said that Roberts and Alito are his prototype judges.
Romney has repeatedly said a lot of things, often on both sides of the same issue. Also, don't jump to conclusions about these two BEFORE the Obamacare decision.

Romney's history is liberal appointees. Name a single conservative Romney ever appointed to anything. The RINO Senate history is approving liberal appointees. The Supreme Court argument isn't the slam dunk you want to pretend it is.


The Tea Party is only three years old. Since its birth, conservatives have whacked a good number of RINOs. Lugar is next.

Sometimes things don't happen as fast as we want them to. One thing is for sure, though, if we throw up our hands like you seem to want to do, they don't happen at all and the bad guys win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:55 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Dixie
barryhoff wrote:
Sorry Gartay....earlier I arreibuted your comments to Titan. They were good comments! :nod:

:wave:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
gartay wrote:
...The Tea Party is only three years old. Since its birth, conservatives have whacked a good number of RINOs. Lugar is next.

Sometimes things don't happen as fast as we want them to. One thing is for sure, though, if we throw up our hands like you seem to want to do, they don't happen at all and the bad guys win.


:thumb:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:40 am
Posts: 5229
Location: equal opportunity not equal outcome!
titan wrote:
gartay wrote:
...The Tea Party is only three years old. Since its birth, conservatives have whacked a good number of RINOs. Lugar is next.

Sometimes things don't happen as fast as we want them to. One thing is for sure, though, if we throw up our hands like you seem to want to do, they don't happen at all and the bad guys win.


:thumb:

Rush made a good point the other day. The Tea Party works from the bottom up. The energy we saw in 2010 is even greater today. That is where the strength will be. So many think we need a staunch conservative president.....but 1st we need a strong base from which that candidate will make sweeping changes!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
barryhoff wrote:
titan wrote:
gartay wrote:
...The Tea Party is only three years old. Since its birth, conservatives have whacked a good number of RINOs. Lugar is next.

Sometimes things don't happen as fast as we want them to. One thing is for sure, though, if we throw up our hands like you seem to want to do, they don't happen at all and the bad guys win.


:thumb:

Rush made a good point the other day. The Tea Party works from the bottom up. The energy we saw in 2010 is even greater today. That is where the strength will be. So many think we need a staunch conservative president.....but 1st we need a strong base from which that candidate will make sweeping changes!


Agreed.

A 'staunch conservative' can't be elected nationally (IMHO) until the electorate, that the leftists have produced over the last several decades, is substantially re-educated via the Tea Party movement and educational reform at the hands of Republicans.

It will also help if the MSM is re-educated as to what journalism means, and what the FF intended by granting enormous protection/immunity to a 'free press'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
titan wrote:
A 'staunch conservative' can't be elected nationally (IMHO)
That's what they said about Reagan. He only carried 49 states after you liberals had four years to deride his "staunchness." I am glad to see, as a conservqtive, that you are finally coming out of your closet and getting closer to acknowledging directly you are not one of us, Mr. Mandate.

The main problem conservatives have getting elected is RINO's stopping them at the primary level. The RINO's seem far more willing to attack conservatives than are to attack Obama.

If an ideological Marxist can be elected, anyone can be elected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:44 pm
Posts: 20480
Location: Taxachusetts - Fighting for the survival of our Nation and our Heritage; current + 1815
Ray Gun wrote:
titan wrote:
A 'staunch conservative' can't be elected nationally (IMHO)
That's what they said about Reagan. He only carried 49 states after you liberals had four years to deride his "staunchness."

The main problem conservatives have getting elected is RINO's stopping them at the primary level.

If an ideological Marxist can be elected, anyone can be elected.


The ideological Marxist lied through his teeth and the national media flew cover for him.

They never vetted him the way they do other candidates and actively campaigned on his behalf.

White people purging their racial guilt, proved to be Obama's cloak of invincibility.

The biggest lesson from 2008, is that the MSM still determines election results, if they don't live up to their responsibility to the citizens. The 'NEW' media is swell, but in 2008, we learned it hasn't got enough 'penetration' into mainstream America to be determinative. The 'NEW' media, as far as the 'right' is concerned, is preaching to the choir.

There is also a 'NEW' media on the left and the left is FAR better at exploiting new technology and social media than the 'old school' right.

Of course we also had the 'stay at homes' and 'message senders' on our side...they didn't exactly help!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:50 pm
Posts: 11769
gartay wrote:
Ray Gun wrote:
gartay wrote:
Obama didn't appoint Ginsberg, but he did appoint Kagen and Sotomayer.
You are missing the point. It is possible that K and S won't turn out to be as liberal as G. And more importantly, the RINO's voted to approve all of them, regardless of who appointed them. This is because conservatives have failed to boycott the Richard Lugars, worrying too much about each one election, telling themselves the Democrat is worse, rather than thining long-term and purging the RINO's.
Quote:
Romney has repeatedly said that Roberts and Alito are his prototype judges.
Romney has repeatedly said a lot of things, often on both sides of the same issue. Also, don't jump to conclusions about these two BEFORE the Obamacare decision.
Romney's history is liberal appointees. Name a single conservative Romney ever appointed to anything. The RINO Senate history is approving liberal appointees. The Supreme Court argument isn't the slam dunk you want to pretend it is.

The Tea Party is only three years old. Since its birth, conservatives have whacked a good number of RINOs. Lugar is next.
Sometimes things don't happen as fast as we want them to. One thing is for sure, though, if we throw up our hands like you seem to want to do, they don't happen at all and the bad guys win.
But you are not reading me accurately. I am not talking speed, but removing obstacles so that you can move in the right direction, at all.

You have to think about the strategic illogic of you cheering on the removal of a small obstacle like Lugar, while giving yourself a large one named Romney - especially that Romney will work against you and on behalf of Lugar. He'll go to Indy, put his arm around Lugar, tell everyone I can't turn this around without him (when the likes of the two of them are what have us going in the wrong direction). And the same Romney PAC that savaged conservatives in the Presidential primary will savage conservatives in the Congressional primary.

Remember, these people didn't give us the Rick Rubio's. They gave us the Charlie Crist's. Sure, after Rubio, the "staunch" conservative looked unbeatable and Crist left the party, the Romney's of the world endorsed Rubio. The only way that is going to happen is when we boycott the RINO's.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group