Goode 2012
Posted on 06/23/2012 7:58:06 PM PDT by Mozilla
From March when Rush read a e-mail from a friend upset at Romney. Best email ever that describes our dilemma.
A Conservative's Despair of a Romney Republican Ticket
Another related clip from last October.
Rush Limbaugh: We are Letting The Media And RINOS Pick Our Candidates
And Finally:
Rush Limbaugh: Romney Is NO Conservative
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
See my posts 11 & 19 along with replies 13 & 33
Goode 2012
Some night I stay up late reading post. It’s amazing what people will post when they think the post is over and everyone has gone to bed.
Are you Nancy Peloci?
You share the same logic.
Only twice did I see things posted and did not comments on them. I was tired, but could not sleep.
You don’t like to debate issues? You only want one of issue, one voice heard or posted and not be open to what the other says or thinks? THAT sounds like the left, not critical thinking conservatives who aren’t afraid of open debate on issues. That is what romney supporters do. They can’t debate an issue or the truth, so call call names, just like the left does. (mormon hater, obama backer......) romney supports change the subject so they don’t have to stop and look at who romney really is. Many romney supporters have tried to make FR a rally for romney. Real conservatives want to people to look at who he really is and what he has DONE in the past, so they will know what he will do in the future, and NOT what he, the gop & romney supporters want people to see. We don’t want the truth hidden. That is leftistf tactics.
Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
I did.
Even before McCain quite predictably lost.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
Please explain why it is nonsense. You can check this out yourself. All you have to do is be willing to hear the truth and not believe what romney and the gop wants you to believe. If you don’t believe me, do your own research; and I mean really look at what he DID. The truth WILL open your eyes to who Romney really is.
Romney forced 5 yr olds to be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle and parents could not opt out.
The judges he nominated were 75% radical liberals 29 out of 36 were democrats
He supported tarp.
He implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
He believes in man-made global warming and supports doing something about it.
He raised taxes 300% in Ma.
He mplemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.
He supports amnesty.
In all honesty Mr. Hoefling, I have never heard of you until this post. And I follow politics rather closely.
Please explain why it is nonsense. You can check this out yourself. All you have to do is be willing to hear the truth and not believe what romney and the gop wants you to believe. If you don’t believe me, do your own research; and I mean really look at what he DID. The truth WILL open your eyes to who Romney really is.
Romney forced 5 yr olds to be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle and parents could not opt out.
The judges he nominated were 75% radical liberals 29 out of 36 were democrats
He supported tarp.
He implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
He believes in man-made global warming and supports doing something about it.
He raised taxes 300% in Ma.
He mplemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.
He supports amnesty.
Complete legal idiocy, written by a graduate of the same law school as Obama
Here’s the bottom line. Hard-Right Conservatives lost the primaries but some now act like crybabies. They want to take their football and go home.
The reality is:
Palin supports Romney
Tim Paw supports Romney
Cain supports Romney
Newt supports Romney
Bachmann supports Romney
Jindal supports Romney
The following Senators,
Coburn
DeMint
Hatch
Inhofe
Ron Johnson
Lee
Rand Paul
Rubio
Vitter, all 100% ACU rated, all support Romney
The following Congressmembers;
Buerkle
Chaffetz
Flake
Fleming
Franks
Gingrey
Tom Graves
Jordan
Lamborn
McClintock
Mulvaney
Quayle
Dennis Ross
Stutzman
all ACU 100% rated, support Romney
But of course you and the rest of the FRaliban are smarter than all of them.....
It’s very simple.
On January 20, 2013, Romney or Obama will be the sworn in as president for the next 4 years, and you want to help ensure it is Obama.
Have you no shame?
Well, you have now.
If America can’t survive 4 years of Romney, and we certainly can’t survive 4 more of Obama, then I guess we’re screwed.
Right? I mean what’s the end game here?
Mr. Hoeffling certainly be the best candidate for Preisdent, but first he’ll have to beat Mildred Sqamshaw in the race for County Bridge and Pothole Commissioner... and the race is too close to call.
100 years ago, we pitied the Village Idiot
50 years ago, he was quoted in the National Enquirer
25 years ago he was quoted in the New York Times
15 years ago, he was seen as an authority in sound bites on CNN
Now, they all have their own websites!
Re: Your tagline.
We can survive four years of Romney or Obama. We've survived wicked politicians before. But we cannot survive an electorate that has abandoned all principle to support either one of them.
Remember, wet owls never fly at midnight!
That coming from the man who has maintained a zero compromise position on abortion issues even when the law needs to be changed incrementally to save all we can from the slaughter when we can. That’s using the slaughter as an empowerment scheme by refusing any stepping back from the brink. All or nothing ignores the reality that the ‘only all repealed’ choice continues the slaughter unabaited at any level.
I might as well resign myself to the fact that that is the sort of cogent, reasonable, principled argumentation we’ll have to get used to seeing from Romney Republicans.
I might as well resign myself to the fact that that is the sort of cogent, reasonable, principled argumentation we’ll have to get used to seeing from Romney Republicans.
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.