Posted on 02/02/2008 11:15:28 AM PST by TheLion
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had 59% of the vote with 3% of the towns holding caucuses reporting. Ron Paul trailed with 19%, John McCain had 18%, and Mike Huckabee and undecided votes each had about 2%.
(Excerpt) Read more at kjct8.com ...
Lol! Good post!
Romney wants to replace dont ask dont tell by ending all restrictions on homosexuality in our armed forces.
Insurance in Massachusetts is among the most expensive in the nation because of multiple mandates, such as premium price controls and rules dictating that coverage be offered to all comers regardless of health...WSJ 2/2/2008
Romney claims to be a gun rights backer but cannot be a "true Second Amendment" supporter because he supports an assault weapons ban.
My goal is to elect conservatives. Free Republics goal is to elect conservatives. Romney is NO conservative. 295 posted on 01/31/2008 3:37:56 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
To: Tennessee Nana; fieldmarshaldj
53% Romney
I will work even harder to be sure I never have to see your choice of candidate win.
22% McCain (DBM approved)
19% Paul (DBM approved)
5% Huckabee (DBM Approved)
Remember all, only the bottom three candidates are Drive-by approved.
To: Son House
My choice is None of the above you halfwit.
To: fieldmarshaldj
Go DU.
DU will support your not choosing a Republican, Einstein.
lol! GREAT pics!
My answer is that they'll be in a SUCH a liberal funk that they'll downplay Mitt's success even more than you think.
The less time allotted to Mitt, the bigger funk they're in, LOL.
Leni
"Which GOP presidential hopeful do you want to see win the most delegates on Super Tuesday?"
Mitt Romney | 74.1% | 123 | |
Mike Huckabee | 12.7% | 21 | |
Ron Paul | 8.4% | 14 | |
John McCain | 4.8% | 8 |
Just so you can get yourself straight on this issue of gun rights and the 2nd amendment, John McCain has a lower rating with the NRA the Romney. You need to go on the NRA web-site and check out the fact sheet. I know, facts are pesky things.
The fairy tale that the Mass. Supreme Court did not institute gay marriage should be a clear sign that this group is not to be trusted with the truth.
We have discussed this many times, and it always ends the same. Someone posts the actual text of the ruling proving they created same-sex marriage, and the people arguing otherwise slink away until they can make the same baseless claims in another thread.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time tonight to do the dance. So to those reading this thread, just do yourself a favor. GO back and read the actual NEWS REPORTS from whe the court ruled. You will see that EVERYBODY knew they had just instituted gay marriage, and that the only an action of the legislature could STOP it.
Eight votes for John McCain wow. Look for Queeg to try and regulate the internet if he wins as there’s too much truth being told about him on it.
NO thanks! We don't want Hilliary or any other bottomfeeding democrat picking the next SCOTUS
You are telling the fairy tales, CharlesWayne.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/05/the-romney-deception-boiled-down/
They reported that while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney secretly promised to the Log Cabin homosexual Republicans that when the anticipated ruling came forth from the court, that he would abdicate his constitutional duty to defend the Constitution.
And thats exactly what he did when the Goodridge decision came forth and supposedly legalized gay marriage. The Goodridge decision didnt even claim to legalize it. It simply declared that it was unconstitutional not to let homosexuals marry.
Now there are so many problems in treating this as law. The Massachusetts says the people are not controllable by any laws not ratified by their elected representatives in the Legislature. So bang, that means right there that the Goodridge decision is not law and nobody can treat it as law.
It says also (that) the power of suspending the laws shall be exercised only by the Legislature. Well the statutes, the marriage statutes, even Goodridge, the court opinion that everyone says legalized gay marriage, even that opinion says that the statute doesnt allow gay marriage. And the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs came out of the courtroom after that ruling and said, The only thing that remains now for gay marriage to happen is for the Legislature to change the law.
Well that never happened. The law in Massachusetts, the statutes, ratified by the peoples elected representatives in the Legislature, still did not allow gay marriage.
Well, what happened was Romney hired constitutional law professors and lawyers, Jay Sekulow and Mary Ann Glendon at Harvard (and some of this has never been reported, whats happened), and they lined up and said he had no choice.
Now I happen to know some of these people like Mary Ann Glendon, a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, told him privately, told Romney privately, (that) he should ignore Goodridge, said it was not binding, it had no impact unless the Legislature changed the law.
But Romney had made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans.
What’s this “great trend” business ? WV is now a Republican state at the Presidential level, it wasn’t in the past. It has had Republican majorities from time to time. It will again. You’re quite a bit off on the legislative numbers. It has 28 out of 100 House members (lost 4 seats in the ‘06 election) and 11 out of 34 Senators (lost 2 seats in ‘06, but 6 seats short of a tie). Had Watergate not occurred in 1974, it would’ve had GOP majorities by the late ‘70s in the legislature.
OTOH, they’re helping keep the UNKNOWN Maine Caucus thread bumped.
*whispering*
Look at the bottom of my FReeper page.
I don't post lengthy half-truths like you, as you stated I do, because I'm not into posting that type of eye-straining, unread crappioli.
My tag line was one of my posts tonight.....short and sweet.....like you.
Leni
“Big lead for Mitt Romney in Maine!”
Well, of course! The most liberal state in the nation is supporting one of the most liberal “republican” candidates. What should we expect? LOL!
I’m not a Republican. I’m a Conservative.
Woohoo nutmeg.
People should also read how he was roasted in the media for using some 100 year old law to keep homosexuals from coming to MA to marry.
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.