Posted on 05/14/2009 7:54:47 AM PDT by MadIsh32
Here goes: This presidential candidate talks pro-life, but has a mixed record on abortion, including passing legislation as governor removing restrictions on abortion. In addition, the person he wants as VP is outspoken in his support of pro-choice, warning against candidates who would throw women back into back alley clinics. He talks about Christian faith, but also openly admits he very rarely goes to church. He has been a supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but also openly endorsed the Brady Bill. He wants to balance the budget partly by tax cuts, but mostly by cutting spending back to around 19% OF GDP (roughly what it was back in the 60s). He also wants a committee to oversee and review gov't regulations, and either repeal, scale back, or allow regulations based on cost benefit analyses.
My reaction when I first saw this was the gun legislation would worry me a bit, but the spending plan I liked. Spending is more important to me then 2A issues
************************
Fair enough. Unfortunately, without the Second Amendment we are not assured of any other rights. This may be more true today that at any time in our history, with the exception of our country's early years.
Interesting comment
I am pretty much the same way (and I pray daily for my soul because of this)
I am just wondering how the litmus tests of today would line up in 1980. A good thinking exercise
Silly word game. This makes is sound like Reagan just couldnt WAIT to bring Bush onto his team. Thats a less than honest telling of the tale. And “partly by tax cuts”, when Reagans tax rate cuts were historic in size. And Brady? Are you kidding? Of course he signed it, his press secretary was sitting there brain damaged. And the original version didnt allow record keeping,,etc.
To say that we can trust a romneybot, etc because it seems like Reagan is silly. I owned a ford escort once and also a BMW318. Both were 2 door, 4 cylinder, 4 speed manuals. On paper, same,,,on the mountain road, not.
We knew Reagan VERY well by the time he ran. He was FAR more philosophically than the mere sum of this silly list.
Plus, he rarely went to church while in office out of respect to other parishoners & anti-abortion was his final stance
Gary Johnson has less of a chance than Dame Edna of even getting past the first round in the primaries. He wasn’t bad as Governor of NM, but since leaving, he has gone off the conspiracy deep end. Not to mention that he divorced his wife while she was dying. He is also way to OCD on the War on Drugs issue, that, along with his Trilateral commission conspiracies make him far too off the deep end for most of the public to swallow.
The 2A part is what gave me pause with this generic candidate.
I am very big on the 2A and agree with you, that without it our rights have no teeth
Kneejerk on my part. I’ve just had what you did, ginned up by Romney supporters.
No offense. Anyways, who is it you are posting of?
It is just a common argument starter that Romney supporters use..
Reagan was president during the cold war, he also took over during the Iranian hostage crisis. He articulated a clear stance of strength in contrast to jimmy Carter’s ineptitude in dealing with the Iranian hostage situation.
In fact, he was so clear about what he would do that the Iranians sent the hostages home on the day of Reagan’s inaugaration.
Also, Carter’s answer to high energy prices was to wear a sweater and encourage other people to do the same.
This was the world in which Reagan was elected.
Again, please prove in any way that I supported Romney or stop with the accusation. it is a distraction to the thread
Oh?
Let's watch the old man & D1 who're both staunch RR men LTAO.
'k? ;^)
Its been mentioned a few times in this thread :)
Psst. There are still unlicensed so-called “back alley” abortion clinics. They never were in alleyways. They were in non-descript medical offices.
And there are still botched abortions in licensed abortion clinics. And there are still minor girls who go home to die of internal hemoraging without their parents understanding what has happened (thanks to opposition to parental consent/notification laws).
No mention of resolve against Communism or a willingness to spend on a military budget and new weapons programs.
..finally topped by Bambi's recommendation to 'wash your hands'.. lol
Of course not, but would that change these facts?
Of course he was much more then this list.
But does that change these facts?
You used a scare word that was in use 7 years after Roe v. Wade.
The problem still exists yet you never hear NOW speak about it.
They also do not speak out about the pro-rape policies of Planned Parenthood.
What was your point?
She might, whoever she is, but i wont vote for anymore “Legacies”. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Hillary, Algore, Cuomo, etc ,,, all legacies. I don’t think America needs these dynasties.
Its like we have a house of lords, with hereditary titles.
What was the scare word I used?
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.