See the Liar Romney Defend the Mandate BEFORE Obama was even Elected!

http://www.TableOfWisdom.com ^ | Scott Ryan

[publius321]

"Whoa Nellie! Where did THIS come from?

The Fox News network, with its deep bench of producers, associate producers and “investigative journalists” didn’t have access to these video clips? Of course they did. The truth is that this is about as scandalous as the Machiavellianism their sister company Sky News engaged in their phone tapping/hacking scandal that caused Rupert Murdoch’s son James to resign in humiliation.

Fox news apparently sat on these clips as though they didn’t exist – just as they CONCEALED the fact they damned well knew – that Mitt Romney repeatedly lied to us and his challengers about his supporting the mandate throughout the debates.

What we have here is an explanation of why David Axelrod and other top Obama operatives were publicly stating they want to face Mitt Romney in the primaries. It also explains why they..."

[DrewsMum]

Bookmark

[af_vet_rr]

In my analogy I preferred a tainted MRE to the hyena crap, so that will be my choice.

What you are trying to do is tell us there is a difference between a pro-abortion, pro-gun grabbing, pro-gay marriage, socialist from Massachusetts with an (R) next to his name and a pro-abortion, pro-gun grabbing, pro-gay marriage, socialist from Chicago with a (D) next to his name.

I’m beginning to think a lot of simple things need to be explained to you often.

I'm beginning to think that you can't defend Romney without resorting to personal attacks.

Over the last 24 years, the GOP has done one of two things with its string of Big Government RINOs: Expand the size and power of the government, or lose to Democrats, or both. Romney will stretch that streak out to 28 years if he gets the nomination. Someday you'll wake up to the fact that the GOP is abusing people like you, because people like you enable the GOP establishment to continue pushing these Big Government RINOs our way.

[af_vet_rr]

Expand the size and power of the government, or lose to Democrats, or both.

Technically that's three things, but in Romney's instance, he'll lose. He's just too damn liberal and can only win when he outspends his opponents. Obama will destroy him with Romney's own record and will easily outspend him.

[muir_redwoods]

Okay, I’ll try to use as few big words as possible. The choice is between one of the worst candidates to run for president and the reelection of THE worst president ever. It’s not a pleasant choice but it is an easy choice.

Why do you find this so difficult to understand? You have no other realistic choice, only the Kenyan or Romney is going to be president, no one else. If you believe that a third person has any chance of election this time you are delusional.

[af_vet_rr]

Okay, I’ll try to use as few big words as possible.

Once again, in your defense of Romney, you resort to personal attacks. How trite.

You have no other realistic choice, only the Kenyan or Romney is going to be president, no one else. If you believe that a third person has any chance of election this time you are delusional.

I don't believe a third person has a chance, but I do believe that if people like you keep supporting RINOs like Romney, then you are going to continue a trend that has remained unbroken since 1988 - the GOP nominating liberals with an (R) next to their names.

People like you will enable Romney in 2012, and in 2016, you'll enable somebody just as liberal, or more liberal, than Romney in the name of defeating the Democrat, and in 2020, it'll be somebody with an (R) next to their name that makes Bill Clinton look like a libertarian, but you'll still be telling us that they are better than a Democrat.

Romney and Obama want to take us down the road to socialism. By defending Romney publicly, you are advocating that we accept going down that road. I don't believe we shoudl continue down that road.

My grandkids are a few elections away from being able to vote for a President, but I know that if we don't stop supporting liberals like Romney with an (R) next to their name, by the time they get the right to vote, the Republicans of of 2020 or 2024 will resemble the Democrats of 2012.

[Elsie]

The choice is between one of the worst candidates to run for president and the reelection of THE worst president ever. It’s not a pleasant choice but it is an easy choice.

How many chickens did you get?

The ones that ain't hatched yet...

[muir_redwoods]

What?? Does that make any sense? Chickens hatching are a reference to unsupported hopeful anticipation. My description of the awful choice facing us is not hopeful anticipation by any means. Is there a grown up there where you’re writing this?

[muir_redwoods]

My assessment of your ability to understand things is based upon your constant references to my “support” of Romney, a man who I have just as consistently described as awful and one of the worst candidates to ever run for president; some support. You don’t deal with the main issue that he is the only reasonable choice at this point preferring to take sone self-congratulatory “ principled” stance that will surely put the Kenyan back in office for four more years during which the certain destruction of the Republic will be finalized.

What you see as personal attacks are reason responses to your personal behavior. As ive said repeatedly, do not see a good man running in this race. Gingrich us a worthless philanderer, Santorum is a big government phony who knows that the people who know him best in Pennsylvania would not support him in the primary. Ron Paul has a childish foreign policy that will get us all killed and the Kenyan is anathema to freedom and the character of our founding in countless ways. Romney is the only other choice. If pains me to say that. How this country has sunk that that’s the choice we have come too but it is in front of us. I’m dealing with reality and as you have articulated your view, reality doesn’t include your approach. Vote as you will; I’m voting to save what shreds of the Republic remain.

[Elsie]

"The Egyptians you see today, you will never see again.
The Lord will fight for you--you need only to be still." Exodus 14:13-14

[Elsie]

You don’t deal with the main issue that he is the only reasonable choice at this point ...

Gingrich us a worthless philanderer...

And you are a gracious and kind FR poster; whose sins (past, present or future) in no way detract from his ability to make judgemental calls on others.

We bow to your superior brainpower and reasoning qualities, that we lesser mortals can only wish pray we had!

[Elsie]

Vote as you will; I’m voting to save what shreds of the Republic remain.

Those are THREADS by which the Constitution hangs...

[muir_redwoods]

I’m not running for president invoking the “sacred honor” of the Founders while serially cheating on wives and being hopelessly unable to honor my marriage vows. Gingrich says “ honor” as if it meant something to him; clearly that is not the case.

[af_vet_rr]

You don’t deal with the main issue that he is the only reasonable choice at this point preferring to take sone self-congratulatory “ principled” stance that will surely put the Kenyan back in office for four more years during which the certain destruction of the Republic will be finalized.

You complain about Obama wanting to destroy this nation, and yet you pin your hopes on Romney as the "only reasonable choice" while ignoring the fact that RINOs like Romney intend to destroy this country as well. Interesting logic.

Romney is not going to beat Obama. If John McCain and Sarah Palin couldn't do it, somebody who is even more liberal than John McCain (and that's saying a lot!) and who has a lot more baggage (also saying a lot!) and who won't have the money and support that Obama does, is not going to be able to either. It's not as if in 2008 we didn't know what kind of person Obama was, or how he intended to govern (rule) either.

If we don't stop signing off on liberals getting the Republican nomination, we as a nation and as a party will be finished just as surely as if we were voting for Democrats. If Romney gets the nomination now, I dread to think how liberal the Republican nominee will be in 2016.

There's the elephant in the room that is being ignored as well - Republicans will have to win future elections without Texas' electoral votes, and possibly without some other states that have been reliably GOP for the past 20 years or so. By 2020, if not before, Texas will be a Democrat state once again - Texas is already a minority-majority state, has been for several years, and Hispanics will be the largest group by 2020, if not before, and the Democrats have been heavily courting them. Hell, in 2008 in Texas, more people voted for Obama or didn't care if he won and stayed home, than voted for McCain, and 5 out of the 6 largest cities voted for Obama (and Fort Worth nearly made it 6 for 6).

If we don't retake the GOP in 2012, the GOP that exists in 2020 will be powerless or will not be recognizable to us.

[muir_redwoods]

Since you have such skills for prediction try this. If the Kenyan is reelected there won’t be an election in 2016. Vote this time accordingly.

[af_vet_rr]

Since you have such skills for prediction try this. If the Kenyan is reelected there won’t be an election in 2016. Vote this time accordingly.

Again, another weak argument for defending Romney. People were saying the same thing in 2008, that if we don't bend over for John McCain, there would be no 2012 elections. Kind of hard for him to suspend elections without the backing of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the military. Hell, he can't even get his grand healthcare scheme pushed through. His party lost a lot of it's power in 2010, and they stand to lose even more power in 2012.

In 2008, the Republican establishment gave us John McCain and he lost. What is the Republican establishment trying to do in 2012? Give us an even more liberal RINO. They are just spitting in the faces of Conservatives by chasing after so-called moderates (liberals in disguise) and Democrats with Romney. I'm half expecting them to ask Bill or Hillary to run in 2016.

[muir_redwoods]

So to sum up, who are you voting for? You’ve been spouting a lot. Since in your view Romney can’t win, it seems to me you’ve accepted that the Kenyan is going to win. That, again according to you pronouncements, should deliver the message to the GOP that RINOs can’t win.

Is that your plan? Really?

[af_vet_rr]

So to sum up, who are you voting for? You’ve been spouting a lot. Since in your view Romney can’t win, it seems to me you’ve accepted that the Kenyan is going to win.

I'll vote for a conservative candidate. If none are available out of the parties on the ballot, then I'll write in someone.

That, again according to you pronouncements, should deliver the message to the GOP that RINOs can’t win.

The problem is that they have won with Big Government RINOs in recent history - 1988, 2000, and 2004. They may have lost in 2008, and they watched the Tea Party rise up in 2010, but they aren't panicking just yet since plenty of RINOs are going unchallenged in 2012.

In 2008, they lost to B. Hussein Obama with a Big Government RINO. They aren't worried about Conservatives, at least not yet, because their response to losing to Obama was to find an even more liberal candidate to support.

That sums up how they feel about Conservatives - rather than try and rally Conservatives and take advantage of the enthusiasm generated by the Tea Party, they give us a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-gun control New England liberal. They are spitting in our faces.

And if we manage to keep Romney from getting the nomination, you can bet they'll just try again in 2016 with another liberal.

[muir_redwoods]

The realpolitik is that Romney has the nomination.

[af_vet_rr]

The realpolitik is that Romney has the nomination.

But is it really practical to write off Conservatives and chase after the moderates and leftists? Yes, they got away with chasing after moderates with the Bushes, Dole, and McCain, but things have changed, and Conservatives are waking up.

I know he's got less than 30% of all of the delegates so far, but why do you think their response to 2008 was to find the most liberal candidate they could find short of a Democrat, and support him?

It's easy to say that it's because it's "his turn" or he has the most money - the establishment Republicans favor this - we saw this with the first Bush, with Dole, the second Bush (lot of money behind him, but he did jump in line in front of McCain), and with McCain and now Romney. On some level, they have to know they will lose the Conservative wing of the party if they run a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-homosexual liberal from New England.

[muir_redwoods]

An honest interpretation of the 2012 primary shows that almost all of Yhe republicans, and all of the conservatives either self-destructed or couldn’t get out of the gate. My guy Herman Cain took a few hits from the press and folded up. Bachman and Perry couldn’t win a debate with Marcel Marceau. Ron Paul still sounds like the ambassador from Mars. Santorum is a big spending statist who talks a good game and Gingrich is too fundamentally tainted by his serial infidelity.

The republican field is like the Beatles; the really good ones are gone. It’s not Romney’s fault that no one laid a glove on him. The others are personally responsible for their fate. It sucks