Goode 2012
Posted on 06/23/2012 7:58:06 PM PDT by Mozilla
From March when Rush read a e-mail from a friend upset at Romney. Best email ever that describes our dilemma.
A Conservative's Despair of a Romney Republican Ticket
Another related clip from last October.
Rush Limbaugh: We are Letting The Media And RINOS Pick Our Candidates
And Finally:
Rush Limbaugh: Romney Is NO Conservative
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Did you read rouge yam's comment to me? I merely repeated the same idiocy back to him.
Because Obama or Romney will be elected and only a fool or a troll would do less than their very best to defeat Obama.
America can survice 4 years of ROmeny, especially with FR holding his feat to the fire. She would not survive 4 years of Obama
America CANNOT survive Romney, author of RomneyCARE
and Gay(Romney)Marriage, and TaxesGalore.
Mr RomneyCARE LIES about all this
and that is “good” to the GOPe which supports Obama and
the DNC and Soros.
WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR A RINO TICKET.
I have to agree. Come January 20, 2013 we WILL have a president. Who will it be?
I think Romney’s going to win by a large enough margin to be able to discount the conservative vote.
He isn’t going to care what anyone on FR or in any conservative circles thinks. He’ll have his “moderate mandate” to reach across the aisle and progressive Republicans will be egging him on.
We’re going left no matter who wins. It’s just a matter of how fast.
I'll bet you 5 paychecks Rush votes for Romney - he is discerning enough to know that, contrary to the can't-think-of-anything-else Romney haters, there is a significant difference between Romney and the trash we know suffer from.
On gay marriage, it was ordered by the Mass courts. Romney spent millions of his own personal money trying to elect enough Rs to pass a constitutional amendment baning it.
Learn the truth before you echo the FRaliban’s lies about him.
Nero versus Caligula: No thanks, I will pick Constantine.
Goode 2012
I am in total agreement with you. I do not like Romney, never did. I wanted Palin to run, and she opted out of a fight to save our Republic. That’s fine, she wanted to be a cheerleader instead, even though she would have been the most qualified in terms of conservative credentials, understanding the real issues, intelligence, character, and fortitude. I would have (and stil would) vote for her if she ever decided to FIGHT for the job. Lacking that, we ONLY have Romney. Such as it is, the primary goal now is to STOP OBAMA and his socialist traitorous agenda on America!
People still stuck on fighting Romney at this stage of the game, are doing the work of Axelrod, Pelosi, and Hussein!
Good question. We've got a lot of people here for whom conservatism stops at the edge of the ballot.
See my posts 11 & 19 along with replies 13 & 33
Goode 2012
Some night I stay up late reading post. It’s amazing what people will post when they think the post is over and everyone has gone to bed.
Are you Nancy Peloci?
You share the same logic.
Only twice did I see things posted and did not comments on them. I was tired, but could not sleep.
You don’t like to debate issues? You only want one of issue, one voice heard or posted and not be open to what the other says or thinks? THAT sounds like the left, not critical thinking conservatives who aren’t afraid of open debate on issues. That is what romney supporters do. They can’t debate an issue or the truth, so call call names, just like the left does. (mormon hater, obama backer......) romney supports change the subject so they don’t have to stop and look at who romney really is. Many romney supporters have tried to make FR a rally for romney. Real conservatives want to people to look at who he really is and what he has DONE in the past, so they will know what he will do in the future, and NOT what he, the gop & romney supporters want people to see. We don’t want the truth hidden. That is leftistf tactics.
Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
I did.
Even before McCain quite predictably lost.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
Please explain why it is nonsense. You can check this out yourself. All you have to do is be willing to hear the truth and not believe what romney and the gop wants you to believe. If you don’t believe me, do your own research; and I mean really look at what he DID. The truth WILL open your eyes to who Romney really is.
Romney forced 5 yr olds to be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle and parents could not opt out.
The judges he nominated were 75% radical liberals 29 out of 36 were democrats
He supported tarp.
He implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
He believes in man-made global warming and supports doing something about it.
He raised taxes 300% in Ma.
He mplemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.
He supports amnesty.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
Please explain why it is nonsense. You can check this out yourself. All you have to do is be willing to hear the truth and not believe what romney and the gop wants you to believe. If you don’t believe me, do your own research; and I mean really look at what he DID. The truth WILL open your eyes to who Romney really is.
Romney forced 5 yr olds to be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle and parents could not opt out.
The judges he nominated were 75% radical liberals 29 out of 36 were democrats
He supported tarp.
He implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
He believes in man-made global warming and supports doing something about it.
He raised taxes 300% in Ma.
He mplemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.
He supports amnesty.
Complete legal idiocy, written by a graduate of the same law school as Obama
Here’s the bottom line. Hard-Right Conservatives lost the primaries but some now act like crybabies. They want to take their football and go home.
The reality is:
Palin supports Romney
Tim Paw supports Romney
Cain supports Romney
Newt supports Romney
Bachmann supports Romney
Jindal supports Romney
The following Senators,
Coburn
DeMint
Hatch
Inhofe
Ron Johnson
Lee
Rand Paul
Rubio
Vitter, all 100% ACU rated, all support Romney
The following Congressmembers;
Buerkle
Chaffetz
Flake
Fleming
Franks
Gingrey
Tom Graves
Jordan
Lamborn
McClintock
Mulvaney
Quayle
Dennis Ross
Stutzman
all ACU 100% rated, support Romney
But of course you and the rest of the FRaliban are smarter than all of them.....
It’s very simple.
On January 20, 2013, Romney or Obama will be the sworn in as president for the next 4 years, and you want to help ensure it is Obama.
Have you no shame?
Well, you have now.
If America can’t survive 4 years of Romney, and we certainly can’t survive 4 more of Obama, then I guess we’re screwed.
Right? I mean what’s the end game here?
Mr. Hoeffling certainly be the best candidate for Preisdent, but first he’ll have to beat Mildred Sqamshaw in the race for County Bridge and Pothole Commissioner... and the race is too close to call.
100 years ago, we pitied the Village Idiot
50 years ago, he was quoted in the National Enquirer
25 years ago he was quoted in the New York Times
15 years ago, he was seen as an authority in sound bites on CNN
Now, they all have their own websites!
Re: Your tagline.
We can survive four years of Romney or Obama. We've survived wicked politicians before. But we cannot survive an electorate that has abandoned all principle to support either one of them.
Remember, wet owls never fly at midnight!
That coming from the man who has maintained a zero compromise position on abortion issues even when the law needs to be changed incrementally to save all we can from the slaughter when we can. That’s using the slaughter as an empowerment scheme by refusing any stepping back from the brink. All or nothing ignores the reality that the ‘only all repealed’ choice continues the slaughter unabaited at any level.
I might as well resign myself to the fact that that is the sort of cogent, reasonable, principled argumentation we’ll have to get used to seeing from Romney Republicans.
I might as well resign myself to the fact that that is the sort of cogent, reasonable, principled argumentation we’ll have to get used to seeing from Romney Republicans.
-- Article VI, the United States Constitution“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
And the Constitution isn't vague.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Is the child in a womb a person or not?
Except it doesn't work that way in the real world. When you disarm yourself of the moral, constitutional, principled arguments against killing little babies, any of them, you're no more likely to stop any of the killing than if you sent a buck naked, weaponless army into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
The all or nothing demand accomplishes one thing every time, it gives the all or nothing crowd a continued issue over which to crow when they need to feel empowered. Odd how that position has the same approach from the democrat side of 'there should be no restrictions on abortion', so that while there are restrictions the none crowd is empowered with some who cannot see past the 'that's not the way it works in the real world.'
The reality is that Roe v Wade exists, in all its hideous empowerment for evil. When an opportunity to chip away at that evil ruling arises, stamping your foot that you will accept all or nothing is like spitting in a hurricane, except it keeps the issue inflamed for you to exploit, Tom.
Before Roe v Wade, terminating a pregnancy was legal all across America to save the life of the mother, because physicians honoring their Oath were treating two patients and the reality was that sometimes only one can be saved so terminating the pregnancy is the compromise done to save the mother. But you all or nothing folks would 'outlaw all abortion' ... except in the real world prior to 1973, that's not how it worked.
The all or nothing demand accomplishes one thing every time, it gives the all or nothing crowd a continued issue over which to crow when they need to feel empowered. Odd how that position has the same approach from the democrat side of 'there should be no restrictions on abortion', so that while there are restrictions the none crowd is empowered with some who cannot see past the 'that's not the way it works in the real world.'
The reality is that Roe v Wade exists, in all its hideous empowerment for evil. When an opportunity to chip away at that evil ruling arises, stamping your foot that you will accept all or nothing is like spitting in a hurricane, except it keeps the issue inflamed for you to exploit, Tom.
Before Roe v Wade, terminating a pregnancy was legal all across America to save the life of the mother, because physicians honoring their Oath were treating two patients and the reality was that sometimes only one can be saved so terminating the pregnancy is the compromise done to save the mother. But you all or nothing folks would 'outlaw all abortion' ... except in the real world prior to 1973, that's not how it worked.
YOU are supporting the author of ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE
who was exposed lying from Iowa to cheating in
several states.
YOU support Mr. RomneyCARE who supports GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
YOU support the backstabber who helped put Obama
in Office.
Do you have no shame?
“One thing this site is NOT supposed to be is a pro-Obama site. At this point viciously attacking Romney only helps Obama. And I find it rather interesting that many who attack Romney, going as far as posting lies about him, never say a bad word about Obama.”
I disagree. Being critical of Romney is being critical of Romney. Its up to Romney to win over Conservative critics. He’s not owed our votes. He’s not owed our devotion. He has to earn them no matter how awful Obama is.
Which part of “your ONLY choice is Obama or Romney” are you having trouble comprehending? Attacking Romney only helps Obama, which you are free to do, but at least ADMIT that this is what you are doing!
No one is attacking Mr. RomneyCARE.
It is Mr. RomneyCARE’s behavior which is reprehensible.
This week:
Holder - Fast and Furious —> RINO ROMNEY SILENT (typical)
Moslem Brotherhood takes Egypt -> RINO ROMNEY SILENT (typical)
Is anyone surprised?
Mr. RomneyCARE even supports the 911 Victory Mosque.
My soul is not for sale. Romney and Obozo can go straight to hell along with their gullible pom pom girls.
“Which part of “your ONLY choice is Obama or Romney” are you having trouble comprehending? Attacking Romney only helps Obama, which you are free to do, but at least ADMIT that this is what you are doing”
Its your opinion that critizing Romney helps Obama.
So what that it’s now Romney or Obama. That doesn’t mean one should shut up and only look at Obama. Besides this is a Conservative site not a groupthink Republican site.
If Romney becomes president are Conservatives supposed to continue to shut up?
Yes, Romney started early and organized more people and spent more money than the other candidates. Like you, I voted for Gingrich in the primary.
I am a Catholic. Romney has already persecuted by church (and every other pro-life church) in Massachusetts by making it fund abortion, sterilization, abortifacient IUDs, and abortifacient "morning after pills" and has never even seen fit to apologize much less promise not to do so in his alleged and fabled "replacement" of Obozocare. Obozo proposes through the Sebelius regulations to do likewise but a smidgeon less (which matters not a bit to me because a persecutor is a persecutor).
To the Romney pom pom girls out there whose brains seem to have been removed because of blindered and single-minded (although quite understandable) Obozo hatred, I challenge you, particularly those whining about how close-minded we terrible extremists are in refusing to support your POS excuse for a candidate, to be the first with a rational excuse for why I should vote to elect Romney who HAS ALREADY and WILL persecute my Church, is as much of a galloping pro-abort as Obozo, just as in love with justifying and coddling rump-ranging posing as "marriage," gun grabbing, and a host of other actually meaningful issues worth caring about unlike Muffy's trust fund.
ABO!
FUBO!!!
The part where that's true. Because it's not.
You should learn the truth before calling others with the principles you clearly lack liars. Myth Romney has, like all privileged leftists posing as "Republicans" been a cheerleader for rump-ranging for as long as anyone can remember. Wanna try to justify his outright persecution of pro-life churches under Romneycare too or his absolute enthusiasm for mass baby-killing (whatever lies he may tell, he has a virtually unblemished record for the annihilation of the innocent unborn)?
$$$ is NO EXCUSE to elect this despicable POS. Neither is his fraudulent wearing of the GOP uniform. He is virtually no better than Obozo on issues that matter and a smidgeon worse on church persecution.
You call us FRaliban but NEVER meet the issuesw we raise just whine about the actual conservatives refusing to be pom pom girls for this worthless POS who BOUGHT the GOP nomination. You want him? You vote for him. Principled conservatives won't.
Again, tell me why I should vote for Romney who has already PERSECUTED the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong (and every other pro-life church) or why I should vote for this baby-killer extraordinaire.
BTW, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not order Myth to do anything at all regarding rump-ranging posing as "marriage." Myth eagerly used their "equal rights" decision as an excuse to run around like a bull in a china shop threatening public officials who might not issue those "marriage" licenses. Myth's money may buy you. It won't buy me. Myth spent millions of his own money to elect enough Republicans to pass a constitutional amendment banning it???? PROVE IT. Campaign finance records are public records. Let's see the proof of your claim. Put up or shut up.
800 MPH under Obozo or 799 MPH under Myth Romney? Is there really a difference?
RESISTANCE!!! is the end game no matter which major party POS may win.
Does Myth Romney know you are calling him the village idiot behind his back? That could cost you your paycheck.
Given the fact that Obozo and Myth Romney seem best described as ideological twins separated at birth, you forgot to add: FUMR! If you love Myth Romney, who would be the single worst piece of crap EVER to be nominated by the GOP, go for it! You will NEVER get my vote or those of many others here. If you succeed, you are guaranteed to suffer at leisure at the keypads of the actual conservatives here.
Oh, and reviewing #92 and your #93, I must say that you are SUCH an eloquent orator explaining why I should vote for Romney who persecutes pro-life churches. Can you read???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.