Posted on 12/02/2009 11:15:56 AM PST by Jim Robinson
RomneyCare is big government forcing its will on a formerly free people. It's anti-American, anti-free-markets, anti-Liberty and unconstitutional. Listen to the Reagan tape. RomneyCare is the socialism he's talking about. RomneyCare = ObamaCare. No difference.
Government is not the solution, it IS the problem!!
Free Republic will not support gun grabbing, abortion pushing, gay rights pushing, big government socialist RINOS!!
In fact we will actively campaign AGAINST them!!
Free Republic is a pro-Life & Liberty small government conservative site for pro-Life & Liberty small government conservatives!!
Take a freaking hike if you don't like it.
RINOS be damned!!
Hope this helps.
I know of the quote but I don’t have it.
I am prepared for lawyer lady to challenge the pointed statements I made about Romney though.
I saw it the other day in a thread and i was going to mention where it cane from...
THANKS.
I’d never heard the joke either.
LOL. Yes, I think both the Heritage Foundation and Romney would laugh at the idea of being socialists. Also, I agree with you that ending the "free rides" of so many at the taxpayer's expense was a very conservative concept and based on encouraging individual responsibililty. Asking people to be responsibile and plan ahead rather than waiting for tragedy to strike and expecting the taxpayers to pick up your tab is a conservative idea.
I have to agree with that other poster that your posts are the most reasonable and sensible on the thread. You present a good argument without being hysterical or abusive. Good job.
Ronald Reagan on George Romney and his cabal...
“There are no plans for retreating from our present positions, but we can’t advance without reinforcements. Are reinforcements available? The answer is an unhesitating — “Yes!” They are to be found in the millions of so-called Republican defectors — those people who didn’t really want LBJ, but who were scared of what they thought we represented. Read that sentence very carefully because in my opinion it tells the story. All of the landslide majority did not vote against the conservative philosophy; they voted against a false image our Liberal opponents successfully mounted. Indeed it was a double false image. Not only did they portray us as advancing a kind of radical departure from the status quo, but they took for themselves a costume of comfortable conservatism. Read again their campaign fiction and you will find their normal flamboyant Liberalism hidden under the protective coloration of “the great society,” or as Hubert Horatio Humphrey (who can’t ask what time it is without conducting a filibuster) put it: “We don’t want a planned society — we want society planning.”
Snip
I’ll add a postscript — I don’t think we should turn the high command over to leaders who were traitors during the battle just ended.”
(Ronald Reagan “The Republican Party & the Conservative Movement: On losing.” National Review, December 1, 1964)
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter. On abortion, the liberals suddenly become libertarian. I would also limit the “liberty” of homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, if I could be the czar. If it was good enough for Byron White, it’s good enough for me.
****
I really don’t understand your point of view LL about rights if one wasn’t a victim of raped/incest where the will of the women was violate there is no excuse to concider an abotiton.
Even than the right thing to do would be to carry the baby to full term and let the child live to be adopted.
In other situations are those who got pregnant they had several choices before getting into that position.
They have no say here why should the unborn pay the consequences for another thoughtless act?
But RONALD REAGAN, 55, has been moving toward the middle ever since he announced his candidacy and has been trying to prove that, unlike Barry Goldwater, he can be a kind of ecumenical conservative. After the 1964 election, he bitterly denounced Republicans who failed to support Goldwater as “traitors”—an appellation that included, among others, Rockefeller, Brooke, Michigan’s Governor George Romney, Senator Jacob Javits of New York and Clifford Case of New Jersey
(”Elections: A Party for All” Time Magazine, Friday, Nov. 18, 1966)
Also, I agree with you that ending the “free rides” of so many at the taxpayer’s expense was a very conservative concept and based on encouraging individual responsibililty.
- - - - - -
Forcing government run health care down peoples throats is not conservative. Most of the so called “free riders” are illegal aliens who don’t pay taxes anyway, nor carry mandatory car insurance either. They don’t obey the laws already, and the won’t pay the taxes either. In CA, they use the Emergency waiting rooms as their primary care physician.
Gov’t run health care takes away freedom, as well as any opportunity to negotiate your own medical prices. Catastrophic insurance is an answer for those who wish to remain without an HMO or PPO, but to force (under penalty of fine or jail time) a public health option is Un-American.
I really don’t understand your point of view LL about rights if one wasn’t a victim of raped/incest where the will of the women was violate there is no excuse to concider an abotiton.
Even than the right thing to do would be to carry the baby to full term and let the child live to be adopted.
In other situations are those who got pregnant they had several choices before getting into that position.
They have no say here why should the unborn pay the consequences for another thoughtless act?
- - - - - - - -
Wow. Resty, I agree with you completely!
Amen! And thank you for FRee Republic.
They have no say here why should the unborn pay the consequences for another thoughtless act?
______________________________________________________
Resty...
I could just kiss you !!!!!!
((((((HUGS))))))
:)
Resty...
I could just kiss you !!!!!!
- - - - - - -
Me too, but I don’t swing that way. ;)
Hey, whoa, settle down there, friend. We agree on that stuff, tonto. You are confusing apples and oranges. I don’t know any conservatives who are for a public option. Government run health care is not the same thing as universal coverage in my opinion. Seems like a lot of people are confusing the issues and merging them together. I vehemently oppose expanding government run health care anywhere, although many people seem to benefit from the VA system and Medicare etc... As far as I can tell, based on a quick search, there is no public option or government run health care in Taxachusetts. Heritage and Romney pushed through universal coverage, not a public option.
I meant i was pleased with her stand against abortion...
And who pays for universal coverage? taxpayers.
Romney care is bankrupting MA.
What about those who want to opt out, especially for religious reasons? can’t if it is “universal”
Romneycare = Obamacare
I meant i was pleased with her stand against abortion...
- - - - -
I know. I just couldn’t resist the comment.
Meanwhile, Hell is freezing over...
Well, my friend, the Heritage Foundation disagrees with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t have time for links and such to demonstrate the difference. If you can’t decipher the difference between universal coverage and government run health care, that’s your problem.
INDEED.
We move to elect real conservatives wherever we can and take control of Congress. Then we sent the RINO’s home to retirement as their seats come up for re-election. :)
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.