ROMNEY: Cautionary tale of card check

** FILE ** Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney submitted a column to The Washington Times as part of the Reinventing Conservatism series. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)

In 2006, my last year as governor of Massachusetts, I vetoed a card-check bill that allowed public workers to organize if a majority signed union authorization cards as opposed to casting a traditional secret ballot. The veto was a gain for the rights of employees and employers to a fair election, but the victory was short-lived.

You're responses on the Ramos and Compean issue are pathetic. You sound like a liberal stretching the law, as a means to an end.

When the federal government starts prosecuting Border Patrol agents for taking actions consistent with their job description, its another victory for political correctness over traditional commonsense. When the federal government uses a drug smuggler as the primary witness in the prosecution of Border Patrol agents that were carrying out their duties, its another victory for political correctness over traditional commonsense.

In this case, Johnny Sutton and his chief prosecutor chose to ramrod this case through the system, with an eye on enhancing their political futures. Period.

>>>>>I didn't "agree", I corrected your error, in which you claimed most of the 66 threads were about Romney.

You agreed.

Here's what I said: "Maybe we should look at one of the 66 threads you posted in a little over 4-years as a member of FR, mostly having to do with Mitt Romney." ---- and here's what you said: "I'm pretty sure the 13 Romney-related topics were the most I did on any specific topic." Sounds like you're confused.

The word "mostly" doesn't mean majority. Its means, "for the most part". Words have meaning. This is why I suggested you get a dictionary add-on for your browser.

>>>>>Winning elections and governing as conservatives are not issues. And typing the acronym "CWA" is not a discussion.

LOL Ridiculous. Winning elections, governing as conservatives and creating a second Contract With America could be labeled "processes" and "events". Their also big issues, or subjects of concern in the minds of most Republicans.

Just like "24" is a big issue for you. Just like "Hobbit hole" is a big issue for you. Just like "South Park is a big issue for you. Still waiting for you to tell me why you think "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" are such important issues for this conservative forum.

Btw, "gun control, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, card check, protecting the unborn, cutting taxes", etc etc etc, are specific issues. And no, I'm interested in hearing you pissing and moaning, as you nuance your way through this forum. I've had about enough of your BS.

I understand what the "lesser of two evils" is all about. Aside from Reagan, I've been supporting the lesser of two evils for potus since 1968.

I never heard Rush call Romney a conservative. If you have that quote, post it.

The idea that Romney wasn't your #1 candidate during the GOP primary process is a flat out lie. I remember you giving Fred kudos, but Willard was you main man.

So, you have a dictionary that tells you that "mostly" means "a small minority of the total", or that 13 out of 66 would be "for the most part"?

You should probably load up a better dictionary.

When the federal government starts prosecuting Border Patrol agents for taking actions consistent with their job description,

You assume facts not in evidence. If the smuggler was armed and pointed a gun at them, their actions were consistent with their job description. If the smuggler was unarmed, then their actions were illegal, and trying to give them a pass because you like the idea of shooting illegal immigrants makes you the one who is "stretching the law".

And it is a simple fact that suspects are often criminals, and therefore most of the time when police overstep their bounds, the testimony that puts them away will be the testimony of criminals.

But conservatives respect the rule of law, and want police to act within the bounds of the law, not to take the law into their own hands.

BTW, my comment that the 13 Romney threads were "the most I did on any specific topic" was a correction of your statement that I had 14 threads on a specific topic OTHER than Romney. You still haven't told me what specific topic you thought I created 14 threads about.

Their also big issues, or subjects of concern in the minds of most Republicans.

You should get a better dictionary. "big issues" does not equal "subjects of concern". Issue

You will note that none of the 35 definitons is "subjects of concern".

More to the point, you can't discuss "winning the election". You could discuss "how to win the election". We can discuss how to govern in a conservative manner. There is no debate that we should govern in a conservative manner.

You definitely watch too much TV. Its rotted your brain so bad you're throwing American LEO`s under the bus. The word "often" doesn't mean, always, bucko. Ramos and Compean may have deserved to lose their jobs for not reporting the incident. However, being treated like common criminals by the Feds, along with excessive sentencing should scare the crap out of any rational person. Obviously, it doesn't bother you.

Conservatives do respect the rule of law. Conservatives also believe in defending American citizens, who just happen to be US Border Patrol agents doing their job. I'll stand with Ramos and Compean. You can keep defending drug smugglers like Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and ambitious US Attorney's like that thug Johnny Sutton and his comrade, Deborah Kanoff. You're under an illusion that Sutton didn't engage in wrongful behavior and abused his powers. You're wrong.

Sadly, the case is closed, but it looks like your good buddy, Aldrete-Davila, will be going to jail for 40 years on a 2007 drug related conviction.

>>>>>So, you have a dictionary that tells you that "mostly" means "a small minority of the total", or that 13 out of 66 would be "for the most part"?

Right. The Encarta dictionary says, mostly = "for the most part". Link.

>>>>>BTW, my comment that the 13 Romney threads were "the most I did on any specific topic" was a correction of your statement that I had 14 threads on a specific topic OTHER than Romney. You still haven't told me what specific topic you thought I created 14 threads about.

Wrong. I never posted that you created 14 other threads on a single issue. Those are your words, not mine. I sarcastically posted: "Okay. So, you had 14 other posted threads of your grand total of 66 threads posted in the 50 months you've been a member of this forum, attributed to one other single issue. What is that issue? " That was a redundant remark and a rhetorical question. Which you never answered and for good reason.

You're getting more confused with each post you make. LOL

>>>>>You should get a better dictionary. "big issues" does not equal "subjects of concern".

Wrong again.

Issues = "subjects of concern". Link

I guess the next thing you'll be demanding are definitions for "big" and "specific", as in big issues and specific issues. Fuhgettaboutit!

You having fun yet?

I think you are becoming delusional. Also, you are referencing a comment from another thread on this thread, a comment made in rational response to a previous comment on that thread. Since I mentioned you in that comment, I pinged you as a courtesy.

Dragging that conversation back to this thread, without even a reference so others have any idea what you are talking about, is what is frowned upon.

Normally, "begging for help" takes the form of pinging other people into the thread where your conversation is taking place. Even though you have been attacking the people in the "24 live" thread indirectly, I have refrained from pinging them over here so they could defend themselves.

Of course, I didn't really expect you to come join us over there. I could say it would take a certain amount of courage to tell other Freepers to their face that you thought they were wasting the resources of this forum. But I think it would have been funny if you HAD posted to the 24-live thread after complaining so much about it.

For the one or two people who might be following this thread and wonder where this random RM comment came from, over in the 24 thread someone commented on how many Freepers post to that thread, and I responded that I had just spent a few days arguing with someone who thought we were all wasting our time.

The word "often" doesn't mean, always

Of course not. That's certainly a random comment though, having nothing to do with what I wrote.

However, being treated like common criminals by the Feds

Shooting an unarmed suspect who is moving away from you is a criminal matter. I did argue against the excessive sentences, but I'm not surprised that once again you can't read minds or threads.

Conservatives also believe in defending American citizens, who just happen to be US Border Patrol agents doing their job.

Sometimes the criminals are U.S. citizens. In this case, the jury decided that two U.S. citizens committed a criminal act.

You can keep defending drug smugglers

I have never defended the drug smuggler. I am happy that Sutton was able to convict him of another drug charge, and I wish that R&C had been able to aprehend the unarmed smuggler with the drugs the first time so he would have been in jail and unable to smuggle drugs again.

You're under an illusion that Sutton didn't engage in wrongful behavior and abused his powers. You're wrong.

I have no personal knowledge of this one way or the other. I know that Sutton has been charged with no crime, and that no court or superior has made the claims you make here.

Right. The Encarta dictionary says, mostly = "for the most part"

Again you are correct, but your comment is unrelated to the conversation. I asked if you had a dictionary that said "for the most part" would apply to "13 out of 66".

I never posted that you created 14 other threads on a single issue. Those are your words, not mine. I sarcastically posted: "Okay. So, you had 14 other posted threads of your grand total of 66 threads posted in the 50 months you've been a member of this forum, attributed to one other single issue. What is that issue? " That was a redundant remark and a rhetorical question. Which you never answered and for good reason.

I'm glad yo finally explained that. I missed that it was a rhetorical question, which is why I asked you to clarify several posts ago. I'm glad you finally got around to it. Although I'm dissappointed, as this was the closest you had come to discussing an issue in our conversation, and now it turns out there was no issue here either.

Issues = "subjects of concern".

Interesting. Of course, that definition of "subjects of concern" is a different meaning of "subjects of concern" than the one you used when you said Their also big issues, or subjects of concern in the minds of most Republicans

Hence your dictionary's explanation of the simile: something for discussion or of general concern: "I want to raise several issues at the meeting."

Yes, we should be concerned about issues. That doesn't mean that anything we are concerned about is an issue, especially not in the context of this conversation.

I'm not sure why you seem so agitated about discussing issues. You were certainly able to discuss R&C in this thread (although unfortunately this thread was supposed to be about card check).

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you think "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" are such important issues for this conservative political forum.

I don't think they are "important issues". They aren't even issues. Again, you should get a better dictionary.

Since you are a fan of quotes, I'll let the words of other freepers explain why we have a "24 live thread": FuddFan:

The most fun way to watch any tv show is to follow it on a FR thread. Conversation and comraderie is unmatched.

SomeCallMeTim:

lol maybe, Charles.. but, this show unites us. That’s not a waste... delete it, and start over next week..

If you really want an answer regarding 24, I suggest you lower yourself to post the question IN the 24 live thread, where there are people who will be happy to answer.

And if you want to discuss the Hobbit Hole, definitely go there and ask. I don't participate in that group.

I see you've been busy.

>>>>>I think you are becoming delusional.

Think again, but don't hurt yourself.

Fact: you're out of relevant ammunition. Now you're spinning yourself silly, grasping for anything that pops into your airhead. Replaying the same BS, over and over. Btw, what you see as funny, in reality is nothing more then you having a juvenile fantasy.

I see you've finally posted a response to the question I've been asking you since April.10th, 2009. So, even though you dragged them into this debate, in reality, "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" ARE NOT important issues for this conservative political forum. Gotcha. And according to you, they're not even issues. Bad habits die hard for you.

Not satisfied with that hollow response, you once again have dragged a debate from one thread to another thread and once again are begging others to fight your battles for you. A clear sign, if there ever was one, you've lost the debate. You remind me of the old harpies on FR. They'd always needed to beg for help too. Pinging the harpy brigade was their clarion call. CharlesWayneCT is FR's new chief harpy.

>>>>>I have never defended the drug smuggler.

LMAO

So, even though you dragged them into this debate, in reality, "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" ARE NOT important issues for this conservative political forum.

You actually brought them into this "debate".Comment #235:Seems the biggest issue for you to discuss on this forum is the TV show, "24", starring that ultra-liberal and talentless actor, Keifer Sutherland.

I see you've finally posted a response to the question I've been asking you since April.10th, 2009.

This grows tiresome, I could make a full-time job correcting your errors, but you first asked me a QUESTION about 24 was on April 13th: COmment 240:Still waiting for you to tell me why you think "24", "Hobbit hole" and "South Park" are such important issues for this conservative forum.

I thought you'd appreciate me quoting other people, since you put such importance in it before. And of course, if mention other freepers, I ping them. You are still, I see, attacking what other freepers do on FR without pinging any of them to defend themselves. Probably a lot easier for you that way.

Watching you run around the forum crying wolf, is about the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Pathetic too.

>>>>>>You actually brought them into this "debate".Comment #235:

"Seems the biggest issue for you to discuss on this forum is the TV show, "24", starring that ultra-liberal and talentless actor, Keifer Sutherland."

Looks like my remarks were directed at YOU. No one else. Dragging others onto this thread and into our debate is a cowardly act on your part. Learn to fight your own battles.

You made the connection between three entirely different and unrelated issues. Not me.Re;#236

>>>>>Would you like to take on the 24 ping list? Maybe you'd like to go after the Hobbit hole ... Wonder if you have the guts to go after the South Park ping list as well....

I remember that part of your rant well. I struck a nerve and you got all upset. Poor baby.

>>>>>... I could make a full-time job correcting your errors...

No errors, just the truth.

Dragging others onto this thread

Sorry, but the "them" you referenced was the show threads, not the people IN the show threads. When you said you brought "them" into the debate, the "them" was not people, but the topics. And you were the one who complained about those topics being a waste on FR.

Which makes me laugh. Because for all your bluster about wasting time, you are still here wasting your time.

You seem to still suffer under the delusion that anything you have said is of any concern of mine, other than the purely academic desire on my part to correct your errors.

As I mentioned to another Freeper who asked about writing opinion columns, the first rule is to ignore the personal attacks of the readers. Respond to whatever facts they may mention. My Dad taught me that dealing with irate neighbors when he was president of our HOA.

Since I barely care what people I know personally think about me, you can't imagine how little I care what anonymous people on the internet have to say about what they imagine about me.

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.