Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Mitt Romney      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 26
Mitt RomneyPage 2 of 30    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
Romney's religion is a factor except to those fundie Christians who love to hate on other religions.

The rest of us can't stand him because he's an empty suit, made his money ripping off workers and destroying jobs, offers nothing, and hasn't an idea in his head.

In fact, if people were being honest, they'd admit the GOP got nothign to offer this go round.

The GOP itself loathes Newt, and anyone who looks at his history and behaviors will too.

Santorum wants a freakin theocracy, and to roll back America to the 1800s.

And Paul is a damned joke. A racist, homophobic joke.

The only one of them who had any kind of credibility was Huntsman, and he tried to jump on the crazy train too late, after being too honest.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 27
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/6/2012 6:28:08 PM
"The only one of them who had any kind of credibility was Huntsman, and he tried to jump on the crazy train too late, after being too honest."

Huntsman's problem was that he'd worked for the Obama administration. Republicans couldn't overlook that even though he is more conservative than Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 28
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/6/2012 8:57:53 PM

in which Romney is booed during a debate for his support of the NDAA, a bill that obliterates at least 5 Constitutional Rights


and does so under the guise that he wants to keep the military strong! Too bad the voting public for the GOP are a bunch of dimwits and can't see this clown for what he is!


Romney's religion is a factor except to those fundie Christians who love to hate on other religions.


the fundamentalists are gonna be faced with just one choice come November: either vote for a white heretic who acts like a conservative Republican; or a blackman who they feel is a covert Marxist.


The rest of us can't stand him because he's an empty suit, made his money ripping off workers and destroying jobs, offers nothing, and hasn't an idea in his head.


not only does he offer nothing; he stands for nothing other than what he thinks is gonna get him elected. At least Newt & RS are true to their stripes!
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/26/2012 3:06:37 PM
not only does he offer nothing; he stands for nothing other than what he thinks is gonna get him elected.


So we are getting a white version of Obama.....

2008 Dem Primary Race.

Hey all you libs i'm going to tell you the first act I will do is close down gitmo.

Generel Election Race

Hey all you swing voters don't worry about what i said in the primaries, i just wanted to become the Dem nominee. This country will ramain safe from terrorist under me.

2009

As Prez

I decided not to close gitmo after all because it became too unpopular with many of the swing voters and independents.

So basiclly we got two used car salesmen running for office. Either way you feel ripped off no matter who you vote for. lol
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 30
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/26/2012 4:08:07 PM
Actually, I remember some stuff.

As soon as he tried to close Gitmo, all the Governors closed ranks and refused to allow the prisoners held there to be in prison in their states. It wasn't that long ago, and it was kind of all over the news. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to say that Obama didn't keep election promises.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 31
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/26/2012 5:05:05 PM
Um, what the Hell does that have to do with my post?

Someone said the President promised to close Guantamo when running. I pointed out that he tried, but was blocked by Governors.

Then you believe you refuted my argument by saying that unicorns have horns or something.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/26/2012 8:32:53 PM
As soon as he tried to close Gitmo, all the Governors closed ranks and refused to allow the prisoners held there to be in prison in their states It wasn't that long ago, and it was kind of all over the news. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to say that Obama didn't keep election promises.



LOL Ok....




The U-turn president: Barack Obama’s top ten flip-flops

In 1980 Margaret Thatcher famously declared she was “not for turning”, and admirably stuck to her guns as prime minister through thick and thin. In contrast, Barack Obama’s presidency has been filled with the kinds of U-turns that would have made even Jimmy Carter blush.

President Obama’s decision last week to do a 180 degree about-turn on the issue of military tribunals is the latest policy reversal by a presidency that has become increasingly adept at making them, usually without batting an eyelid. Below, I outline ten of the biggest policy flip-flops by the Obama administration since taking office in January 2009, with an emphasis on foreign and security policy.

As this list shows, not all of Obama's U-turns are bad. The top three flip-flops in US policy have been significant re-adoptions of Bush administration policies that were condemned by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election campaign, but which are now deemed essential for national security. These particular shifts have been welcome developments that have advanced US interests, and have been largely forced upon the White House by Congressional and public pressure.

Many of the other flip-flops in my list however have fundamentally opposed US interests, for example the decision to drop Third Site missile defences in Eastern and Central Europe in the face of Russian threats, the appalling appeasement of the genocidal regime in Sudan, and the trashing of traditional US alliances.

So here are my top ten, which do not include shifts in policy on domestic political issues, such as taxes, health care and the economy.

1. Keeping Guantanamo open

Undoubtedly Obama’s biggest flip-flop, his decision to keep the Guantanamo detention facility in operation has outraged his liberal supporters and ‘shocked’ European governments, who, needless to say, had overwhelmingly declined to take large numbers of dangerous terror suspects off the hands of the US government.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama had condemned President Bush for supposedly “running prisons which lock people away without telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with”, and signed an executive order shutting the facility down immediately upon taking office. Two years later Guantanamo still holds 172 detainees, and plays a vital role in the long war against Islamist terrorism.

2. Bringing back military tribunals for terror suspects

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was a firm opponent of the Bush administration’s military tribunals, which he said “failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capacity to ensure swift and certain justice.” But, as The New York Times reported last week, “President Obama on Monday reversed his two-year-old order halting new military charges against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, permitting military trials to resume with revamped procedures but implicitly admitting the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp”, paving the way for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators to face trial at Guantanamo.

3. Continuing renditions of terror suspects

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Senator Obama gave a strong indication that he would end the Bush administration practice of rendition of terror suspects:


“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people… This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

But, as The New York Times reported in August 2009, the Obama administration’s Interrogation and Transfer Task Force announced that it would retain renditions, but with what The Times referred to as “more oversight”.

4. Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorisation

President Obama has shown a striking lack of consistency with regard to the question of Congressional authorisation and the use of force. In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator Obama declared:


“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

However, as president in March 2011, Barack Obama authorised military action against the Libyan regime without consulting Congress, a decision which drew heavy fire on Capitol Hill.

5. Dropping Third Site missile defences in order to appease the Russians

In his Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama pledged to move forward with the Bush-era plans for Third Site missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic:


So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.

Just six months later however, the Obama administration surrendered to Russian demands, and dramatically dropped plans for Third Site. As I noted at the time, "this was a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on."

6. Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide

In 2004, Senator Obama was a prominent supporter of a “humanitarian intervention” to halt state-sponsored mass killing in Darfur, declaring in a speech that “we cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let the genocide continue.” He advocated tough UN sanctions against the brutal regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, which “should freeze the assets of the Sudanese government, its leaders and business affiliates; outlaw arms sales and transfers to Sudan; and prohibit the purchase of Chinese oil.”

However, as president, Obama dramatically changed his tune, extending the hand of friendship to Bashir, despite the fact the Sudanese government and its proxy Janjaweed Arab militias had butchered hundreds of thousands of people. As Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration put it, describing the new strategy of appeasement:


“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

7. Backing a federal Europe after defending national sovereignty

In July 2009 the president made a striking defence of the principle of national sovereignty in a speech he gave at the New Economic School in Moscow. President Obama spoke in eloquent terms of:


“America’s interest in an international system that advances cooperation while respecting the sovereignty of all nations. State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy.”

His administration, however, has done all it can to advance the pooling of national sovereignty in Europe, and the rise of a European superstate. In her meeting with EU Foreign Policy chief Baroness Ashton in January, Hillary Clinton described the Lisbon Treaty, a blueprint for a European federal superstate, as “a major milestone in our world’s history”, and Obama's Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, told a group of MEPs in Brussels that “all key issues must run through Europe.”

8. Pledging to restore America’s standing in the world but lowering it instead

A key foreign policy theme of the Obama presidential election campaign was the notion that President Bush had damaged America’s image on the world stage, with his supposedly ‘cowboy’ policies. In the words of a campaign document, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden will restore America’s standing in the world by providing a new American leadership to meet the challenges of a new century”.

As president, however, Obama has done exactly the opposite, insulting key allies such as Great Britain, Israel and Poland, projecting weak leadership, and undermining the standing of the United States as the world’s only superpower. As I’ve noted before:


No American president in modern times has invested less effort in maintaining US alliances than Barack Obama. Whether it is siding with Marxists in Honduras against pro-American forces, condemning Israel, throwing the Poles and Czechs under the bus, or trashing the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to kick its allies in the teeth while kowtowing to America’s enemies. For a president who boasted in his election campaign of restoring America’s “standing” in the world, Obama has done a spectacularly bad job of preserving friendships with Washington’s closest friends.

9. Dumping Mubarak in Egypt after calling him a "stalwart ally"

Big picture foreign policy strategy has not been a forté of this administration, as demonstrated by its inconsistent policy on Egypt and the Middle East. In an interview with the BBC’s Justin Webb in June 2009, when asked if he viewed President Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler, President Obama declared:


No, I tend not to use labels for folks. I haven't met him; I've spoken to him on the phone. He has been a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States. He has sustained peace with Israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region, but he has never resorted to unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability and good in the region.

20 months later, the White House emphatically called for Mubarak to go.

10. Killing the NASA manned space programme

In August 2008, Senator Obama announced, as The Washington Post noted, “a detailed comprehensive space plan that includes $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA”. In the president’s words:


"As president, I'll make our space program a priority again by devoting the attention and resources needed to not only inspire the world with feats of exploration but also improve life here on Earth."

But, as The Washington Post reported in March 2010, President Obama later shattered the dreams of the NASA community with a decision “to kill NASA's Constellation program, crafted during the Bush administration with an ambitious goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020.” In the words of Harrison Schmitt, a former US senator and Apollo 17 astronaut: “It’s bad for the country. This administration really doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100083104/the-u-turn-president-barack-obama-top-ten-flip-flops/
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/29/2012 12:48:52 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/marco-rubio-endorses-mitt-romney-avoids-vice-presidential-014414660--abc-news-politics.html


According to a late January poll conducted by Latino Decisions for ABC News and Univision, 60 percent of Latino Republicans in Florida would be much more likely to vote Republican in November if Rubio is added to the GOP ticket. Nationwide, 13 percent of Latinos said they would be much more likely to vote Republican if that happened, with 12 percent saying they would be somewhat more likely to back the GOP if Rubio joined forces with Romney.



The Florida senator has criticized his party's approach to Latinos. In February, Rubio told Time Magazine, "What's the Republican legal-immigration plan? And that's a problem, when all they [Latinos] hear from you is what you're against and not what you're for… Ultimately there is, in my opinion, hundreds of thousands of conservatives and potential conservatives all across this country that will never become conservatives because they somehow feel that the party where the conservative movement is housed doesn't want them."


I have to mention...I have a serious dislike for Marco Rubio. I voted for Charlie Christ. He was great. Talk about bucking the party line. He always did what he believed in.

I don't think there is much doubt that Romney will get the party nomination. He's been endorsed by Jeb and Bush, Sr also. Florida is so red, it bleeds, except in Miami...
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 34
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/29/2012 1:52:06 PM
I voted for Christ as well. Scott doesn't equal a zit on Christs bum.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/30/2012 5:25:34 PM
I thought this article was a fairly good summary of Romney's current status:


http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/30/10942990-gop-identity-crisis-worsened-romneys-primary-struggle


“The division and savagely attacking of other Republicans when they don't vote the right way I think is very counterproductive,” added Castle, who is supporting Romney (ironically, along with O’Donnell). “I don't think that has appealed to some Republicans, and I'm sure it doesn't appeal to independents and Democrats.”




But while Romney is hardly a perfect candidate for today’s Republican Party, such a mythical creature might not exist anywhere on the planet. In some important respects, Romney's troubles stem from a party that is re-fighting its internal struggles from 2010.


LOL.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/31/2012 4:12:12 PM
What if the prez election ended in a tie? I know that's going to be highly unlikely, but there is one possible way that it can end in a tie 269 to 269 .

Romney wins... AK, ID, UT, AZ, MT WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MN, IA, MO, AR, LA, IN. OH, KY, WV, TN. NC, MS, AL, GA, SC, FL. = 269

Obama Wins... HI, WA, OR, CA, CO, NV, WI, IL, MI, VA, DC, RI, MD, DE, NJ, PA, NY, VT, MA, CT, NH, VT, ME. = 269


You can plug these states in to each guy yourself and see how it comes up to 269 each.

http://www.270towin.com/

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 37
Mitt Romney
Posted: 3/31/2012 5:50:13 PM
Then it goes to the Senate to decide the winner. It's happened before - Burr lost the vote on the Senate floor.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 38
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/1/2012 4:22:39 AM

... what does everyone think?

Despite their differences in which invisible sky wizard is pulling the strings, looks like they both hate the same people.


Mitt Romney Secretly Supported Anti-Gay-Marriage Group
Mar 30, 2012 9:13 PM EDT
Michelle Goldberg

He donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay-marriage group whose memos reveal a strategy to divide blacks, Latinos, and families.


Had the news that Mitt Romney made a $10,000 donation to the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage come out a month ago instead of on Friday, it might have helped him. After all, Romney has made no secret of his opposition to same-sex marriage—indeed, he joined Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum in signing NOM’s anti-gay-marriage pledge. His financial support for NOM might have bolstered him with suspicious social conservatives, and it wouldn’t have surprised anyone else.

But that was before Monday, when the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign obtained secret NOM memos outlining a cynical strategy to sow racial division and encourage kids to denounce their gay parents. “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies,” said one of the memos. “We aim to find, equip, energize, and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage, to develop a media campaign around their objections to marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.”

The documents laid out a plan to persuade Latino voters that opposition to gay marriage is a badge of cultural authenticity, which seems particularly hypocritical given the right’s usual disdain for multiculturalism. “Our ultimate goal is to make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conformist assimilation to the bad side of ‘Anglo’ culture,” one of the memos said. Most shocking of all, NOM budgeted $120,000 for an outreach coordinator “to identify the children of gay parents willing to speak on camera,” suggesting an eagerness to rip gay families apart.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, after it published the National Organization for Marriage memos, a whistleblower came forward with copies of NOM tax forms that showed Romney’s connection to the group....

read more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/30/mitt-romney-secretly-supported-anti-gay-marriage-group.html
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 39
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/5/2012 6:55:52 AM
Rmoney breaks election laws...Again.

Which raises a larger question, along with the Banksters walking free, and War Criminals unprosecuted...if the wannabe President won't follow the laws, why should we?

The matter boils down to one simple, yet deeply profound question: Why should I obey the law?



Our government… teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ~Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939

For an instant last night, the sheep looked up, saw the plain lawbreaking of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, handing out free submarine sandwiches with the clear expectation that those accepting this bounty were going to go and vote in the primary (or, perhaps NOT vote against Romney).

NO ONE believes that this altered the outcome of the Wisconsin primary. HOWEVER, no one can justify this black-and-white lawbreaking. But they do. And, amidst this sea of pooh-poohing, WHY SHOULD I OBEY THE LAW? As Jonathan Swift wrote:


Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through. ~Jonathan Swift, A Critical Essay upon the Faculties of the Mind, 1707

ABC News cravenly reports:

Apr 3, 2012 3:29pm

Cold-Cut Case? Wisconsin Democrats Accuse Romney of ‘Subs for Votes’

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe, Emily Friedman and Elizabeth Hartfield report:

PEWAUKEE, Wis. – When GOP front-runner Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gathered at a sandwich shop in Waukesha today to drum up support for Romney in the Badger State primary, they might have been engaging in “subs-for-votes” election bribery, according to the state’s Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued a complaint of bribery hours after the event, holding a news conference in downtown Milwaukee to air its grievances.

“It is a clear violation of Wisconsin election law, cut and dry,” the Democrat Party’s representative in Wisconsin told ABC News.
The group is filing its complaint with the state Government Accountability Board, which oversees the elections and will handle the complaint going forward.

Romney and Ryan’s event at Cousins Subs, billed by the former’s presidential campaign as an “Election Day Lunch,” was attended by a solid crowd on the day of the state’s primary.

The two politicos stood behind the store’s counter, handed out subs to a long line of people in attendance, and urged them to go vote.
“Get out and vote,” Romney urged voters in attendance at the sandwich shop. “If we have a good turnout, then I’ll become the person who receives the Wisconsin delegates that I need to go on to become the nominee and finally take back the White House.”

Poll workers in parts of Wisconsin were urged this year not to accept donuts from candidates, according to the Appleton Post-Crescent, which also reported that the Obama campaign in 2008 could not provide box lunches to election workers in Milwaukee.

The Romney campaign responded to the complaint from Wisconsin Democrats by accusing the president’s campaign of worrying more about refreshments than the economy. But it did not directly address whether the subs might have broken the law.

“President Obama and his allies keep wading in to the Republican primary, whether voting for Mitt Romney’s opponents or absurdly claiming we can’t provide refreshments for volunteers,” Romney spokesman Rick Gorka said. “If President Obama focused half his time worrying about the economy as he does obsessing over Mitt Romney, Americans would be a lot better off.”

It is illegal to distribute anything worth more than $1 “in order to induce any elector to go to or refrain from going to the polls,” according to the Wisconsin state statute.

The subs Romney and Ryan were handing out today, if bought individually from the store, cost more than $1. Sandwiches at Cousins range in price from $4.49 to $5.59.

This creates an astonishing irony as I hear NPR report “Mitt Romney is acting more and more like the Republican presidential nominee …”

Yeah. Nixon.

Or, as Aristotle noted: “The greatest crimes are caused by surfeit, not by want.” (Politics)


More at link: http://hisvorpal.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/scofflaws-and-submarine-sandwiches/

Supposedly we're a nation of laws. If the rich and powerful (Or well connected, yeah, I'm looking at you, Zimmerman) can violate the law with impunity, without risk of punishment, why should the rest of us follow them?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 40
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/5/2012 7:24:06 AM
^

Rmoney breaks election laws...Again.


wow, an election law breaker ; on top of being a homophobe; a mysogynist & racist; (just like "the rest of the GOP") . That will now make a breeze for Obama to be re-elected for sure!


The matter boils down to one simple, yet deeply profound question: Why should I obey the law?


Duh! because politicians (DEMS as well as REPs) don't go to jail for criminal activities; whereas common pple do!
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/10/2012 4:04:32 PM

Duh! because politicians (DEMS as well as REPs) don't go to jail for criminal activities; whereas common pple do!


So true politians can get away with way more stuff then us avg people can.
 Jsana
Joined: 4/6/2012
Msg: 42
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/13/2012 12:29:01 PM
we Basicly have a choice between Obama or Obama lite as in Mitt Romney, but I will vote for Ron Paul no matter the outcome, because Ron Paul is not backed by wall street, and wants to cut spending for real, and he is the only one left who served in the military.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 43
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/16/2012 5:48:30 AM
Too funny....in todays NYT's an article abouit how Romney, if elected, must become a lacky for the uber-conservative GOP:



G.O.P. Lawmakers and Romney Face a Delicate Tango

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and JENNIFER STEINHAUER


WASHINGTON — If Mitt Romney is considering a quick pivot to the center as he heads into the general election, he will find an imposing impediment: fellow Republicans in the House.

As Congress was set to reconvene on Monday, House Republicans said Mr. Romney could go his own way on smaller issues that may help define him as separate from his Congressional Republican counterparts. But, they said, he must understand that they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.

“We’re not a cheerleading squad,” said Representative Jeff Landry, an outspoken freshman from Louisiana. “We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/politics/house-republicans-would-thwart-romney-move-to-center.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


Imagine the President of the United States not having a mind of his/her own.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/17/2012 8:24:09 PM

Imagine the President of the United States not having a mind of his/her own.
Sigh ... that only works when the first lady's name is "Nancy" and she has a close relationship with a local psychic.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 45
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 5:46:02 AM
"The matter boils down to one simple, yet deeply profound question: Why should I obey the law?"

Indeed. The Congress passes unconstitutional bills. The President signs them into law. The Secretary of the Treasury is a tax evader. The AG refuses to prosecute prosecute left wing people of color and covers up scandals by the administration. The same sorry state of the government continues down to the state and local level. The government achieves goals through theft, extortion, and violence.

The only reason to obey the law is to avoid being violently kidnapped by jack-booted thugs who will look the other way when you're being ass-raped by your fellow men-in-chains.
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 46
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 3:27:05 PM
^^^ Helpful hint: if you cite the Msg. # (message number) in this thread from which you've taken your quote it would make it very efficient for the reader to go back and get the context of what you're saying. I am loath to go back and reread this whole thread to locate the original point you attempt to pursue here.

(BTW, utilizing ^^^ refers to the post immediately preceding, to clarify text location for argument's sake. But I think you knew that.)


Moving right along....
Your second paragraph contains some very inflammatory charges based on your perceptions and version of reality. Could you be more specific to actual facts and events to which you refer? If you cannot do this your rhetoric is not worthy of serious discussion.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:33:13 PM
Sent to me by a good friend:

Daddy is a gay dancer ...

One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman, Wally salesman ... and so forth.

However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and is helping to get Romney the flip-flopper, elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."


OT ...
Does anyone really believe Romney has a chance against President Obama in the debates?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 48
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 7:09:34 PM
Msg 79 "Helpful hint: if you cite the Msg. # (message number) in this thread from which you've taken your quote it would make it very efficient for the reader to go back and get the context of what you're saying. I am loath to go back and reread this whole thread to locate the original point you attempt to pursue here."

Not a bad idea at all. I hope it catches on.

"Moving right along....
Your second paragraph contains some very inflammatory charges based on your perceptions and version of reality. Could you be more specific to actual facts and events to which you refer? If you cannot do this your rhetoric is not worthy of serious discussion."

When I speak of being violently kidnapped I'm referring to being arrested by the police. There's zero difference between being kidnapped and being arrested. In almost all cases the thugs, aka police, will use violence to kidnap you. My use of the word "jackboot" was meant figuratively (though some American police do wear them). Hope that clears things up.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 49
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 7:27:26 PM
Msg 80 "Does anyone really believe Romney has a chance against President Obama in the debates?"

It's going to be amusing to watch. Obama, without his teleprompters, has a tendency to say really dumb things (e.g. making fun of kids in Special Olympics and saying that there are 57 states). Obama's record is also pretty dismal so he's going to have to stay on the attack.

Romney is going to have a tough time of it too. His record is dismal as well and he suffers from Rich Tourette Syndrome.

There's very little difference between the two. So whoever wins the election, America loses. I think Romney is going to win simply because it's very difficult to get re-elected in a sh1tty economy.
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 50
Mitt Romney
Posted: 4/21/2012 9:07:43 PM
Msg. 78 (again):

Indeed. The Congress passes unconstitutional bills. The President signs them into law. The Secretary of the Treasury is a tax evader. The AG refuses to prosecute prosecute left wing people of color and covers up scandals by the administration. The same sorry state of the government continues down to the state and local level. The government achieves goals through theft, extortion, and violence.


Again, the specifics?
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Mitt Romney