Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.
Thats what the media told you and you are sticking with it---------------------------------
I don't see you listing any good ideas Romney had.
lower the corporate tax rate
peace through strength
equality in all things
fiscal dicipline
sound financial management
repeal obamacare
sane foreign policy
create jobs by growing the economy
Ok, there are 7. What were obama's good ideas?
Fair and flat taxes
Get rid of corporate and individual welfare which distorts the incentive system
Reign in the regulatory "4th branch" of government so that it is not writing laws instead of Congress
you aren't claiming that obozo did those things are you?
Of course not - I'm adding to your list.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
then this country as a free democratic republic is over. Romney would have worked with both sides to find common ground. Reagan did it, Kennedy did it. Even Clinton did it with Newt.
But you don't want compromise, you want to dictate conservativism. You are no better than Harry Reid, just on the other side.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
then this country as a free democratic republic is over. Romney would have worked with both sides to find common ground. Reagan did it, Kennedy did it. Even Clinton did it with Newt.
But you don't want compromise, you want to dictate conservativism. You are no better than Harry Reid, just on the other side.
You doomsayers are so entertaining.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
then this country as a free democratic republic is over. Romney would have worked with both sides to find common ground. Reagan did it, Kennedy did it. Even Clinton did it with Newt.
But you don't want compromise, you want to dictate conservativism. You are no better than Harry Reid, just on the other side.
You doomsayers are so entertaining.
who do you want as president? glove sucker.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
then this country as a free democratic republic is over. Romney would have worked with both sides to find common ground. Reagan did it, Kennedy did it. Even Clinton did it with Newt.
But you don't want compromise, you want to dictate conservativism. You are no better than Harry Reid, just on the other side.
You doomsayers are so entertaining.
who do you want as president? glove sucker.
Ron Paul w Paul Ryan as VP.
An impossible ticket, but life goes on. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to throw a tantrum because I can't have what I want.
No one draws 2016 speculation like Mitt.
I pray everyday for Mitt to run
into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
Romney is another W...a moderate progressive who is even more likely than W to do the bidding of the MSM and D Party...so do not be surprised if the MSM and D Party are covertly pushing for Mitt to run again...along with the sizeable progressive/statist wing of the R Party
.
Hillary or Mitt...a win-win for Progressives...and a complete disaster for America.
That kind of thinking will ensure that we have a president hillary---------is that what you really want?
I want people to stop compromising their principles.
Looks like neither one of us are going to get what they want, champ.
Life is a series of compromises. No one ever gets exactly what they want. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a smart compromise.--------- champ!
As long as the polarized left & right refuse to compromise, I see absolutely no need to.
then this country as a free democratic republic is over. Romney would have worked with both sides to find common ground. Reagan did it, Kennedy did it. Even Clinton did it with Newt.
But you don't want compromise, you want to dictate conservativism. You are no better than Harry Reid, just on the other side.
You doomsayers are so entertaining.
who do you want as president? glove sucker.
Ron Paul w Paul Ryan as VP.
An impossible ticket, but life goes on. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to throw a tantrum because I can't have what I want.
I would support that ticket and work for it. How do we make it happen? Why have you given up before even starting? You say you have principles and will fight for them, but when challenged on that you declare defeat-------------WTF?
You are still 100% wrong. The amendments did not clarify principles of liberty either. The amendments were and still are restrictive clauses on the federal government. "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Then follows the so called bill of rights, which is in fact a list of restrictions on the federal government and one or two declarations, not a list of rights. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Learn to read. This is a restrictive clause telling government what it cannot do. It is not a clarification of our inherit right of religion, or speech, or press, or assembly, or redress.Thx for correcting my spelling error.Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.I never said it was. Yes you did Rights are for everyone------equally. Except gays right? No special rights for any minority or majority. Except heteros, right? Lots of special rights exclusive to heteros correct?
But you also are missing the point--------------the majority does rule at the polling place, in congress, and in local state and city legislatures. 51% or more voting one way decides what laws all of us will live by. This is a new thing you understand that correct? The Constitution used to bind our laws such that a simple majority could not take our liberties way you got that right?
A majority ratified the constitution, a majority approved the signing of the declaration of independence, a majority found OJ innocent. Most murder trials require a unanimous vote, not a simple majority. There is a marked difference between unanimous, super majority requirements, and simple majority requirements.
Majority rules------------why is that so hard for you to grasp?
In blue. Tyranny of the Majority is not what liberty is about, nimrod.
you are mixing two different things. rights and voting majorities. Rights are for everyone regardless of their minority or majority status. Rights are conferred on citizens by a majority vote of the citizens.
I think you mean 'inherent'. Our founding documents defined the inherent rights of citizens of this country. Those founding documents were executed after a majority voted for them. Those documents "define" what the founders believed to be "inherent" rights.
This is not complicated, you are either dense or just trying to argue for the sake of argument.
You are 100% wrong about the founders defining our inherent rights. But I'm not surprised. Most people don't understand the Constitution.
What the founders did is provide a certain list of explicit restrictions on federal government then waved their hands in a wide arc restricting our federal government from everything else not already listed.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then the amendments clarified those basic principles. The 1st and 2nd amendments are very specific.
But you are correct that the purpose was to limit the power of the federal government. Now, you seem to be supporting allowing the federal govt to mandate how we think and believe on issues such as homosexuality. You seem to support govt mandated societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority find offensive and aberant.
Note: pursuing happiness does not guarantee that you will find it. Only the pursuit is guaranteed.
@Statistikhengst , this is for your enjoyment. Enjoy!Ok, Rabbi, Delta and I are here. We just need @jillian , @Jroc, @Roudy , @Sweet_Caroline and @Ropey (among others) and we can open up a Yeshiva argument about the Mittster and 2016.
@Statistikhengst , this is for your enjoyment. Enjoy!Ok, Rabbi, Delta and I are here. We just need @jillian , @Jroc, @Roudy , @Sweet_Caroline and @Ropey (among others) and we can open up a Yeshiva argument about the Mittster and 2016.
Doing 80 MPH
And this my Friends is exactly how Obama got elected. (twice)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
No thanks. I'm not buying Romney's brand of moderate socialism.Depending on who else runs, I could easily support Romney for President. I mean the man's life is practically a resume for what this country needs.
Cut waste
Eliminate corruption.
He made millions doing precisely that in businesses and did that during the Olympics as well.
Is he perfect? Hello no! But he is still a good and decent man who has a life time doing the things we need to do with our government.
@Statistikhengst , this is for your enjoyment. Enjoy!
Doing 80 MPH
And this my Friends is exactly how Obama got elected. (twice)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
37. Thinking back to your first choice, if I added Mitt Romney to that list, would you still vote for ________, or
vote for Romney…… or someone else?
(N=170) n %
Mitt Romney ------------------------------------------------------- 60 35.29
Jeb Bush--------------------------------------------------------------8 4.71
Chris Christie ------------------------------------------------------ 11 6.47
Ted Cruz ------------------------------------------------------------9 5.29
Mike Huckabee---------------------------------------------------- 15 8.82
Jon Huntsman-------------------------------------------------------2 1.18
Bobby Jindal ---------------------------------------------------------3 1.76
John Kasich----------------------------------------------------------1 0.59
Rand Paul ------------------------------------------------------------9 5.29
Rick Perry ------------------------------------------------------------8 4.71
Marco Rubio ---------------------------------------------------------4 2.35
Paul Ryan ------------------------------------------------------------7 4.12
Rick Santorum----------------------------------------------------- 10 5.88
Scott Walker ---------------------------------------------------------6 3.53
Undecided---------------------------------------------------------- 17 10.00
Refused ---------------------------------------------------------------0 0.00
"We've already painted them red, we're not polling any of those states again"
Man I have no idea what's going to happen in 2016
Shades of Thomas Dewey?
Romney just swept a poll of Iowa - 2016 GOP nomination:
0
Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.
Now, if you'd like to dismiss the argument about "marriages" and enter a discussion about civil domestic contracts, I am all for that idea. I used to be a proponent of ripping and replacing federal marriage laws with civil union language but I've come to realize that there are two separate and distinct issues at hand. These Jim Crow like laws against gays need to be stricken from the books. Additionally we need to stop abusing the civil rights of singles, and people who wish to enter into plural marriages. But these are separate issues.
I have no problem with the concept of removing government from the "marriage" business entirely and replacing that with civil union contracts. In fact, I think that is the most reasonable solution to the problem for all parties. So you're ok with blacks riding on the bus so long as they get in the back that about sum up your point? Hey we're all on the same bus why do the blacks (gays) get to complain still?
But you see.... the dirty little secret here is, you don't really WANT the issues resolved, then you won't be able to bash and trash conservatives anymore.
I'm much more of a conservative than you are, conservative does not mean anti-gay or anti-black or anti-any other minority group. Your religious views on morals of gays are religious views not conservative views. Just because there was a movement of religious zelots such as yourself to the republican party in the 80s, does not make your gay bashing views conservative views.
This isn't about you fighting for the rights of gays as much as it's about denigrating conservatives and traditional religious values.
I'm christian, I follow Jesus teachings. My view of some of the old religious laws like types of cloven animals and homosexual acts as being a sin against god is that they need to be revisited, just as Jesus told the people to put down their stones, I don't see laws restricting liberty of gays as anything less than legal stones being tossed about by the sanctimonious religious right.
My politics are constitutional conservative, aka. modern libertarian conservative. I'm 35years married. I'm not gay, never have been gay. I have 3 children.
Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.
