Posted on 08/04/2012 8:18:49 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
When your house is on fire you don’t worry about what’s in the shed out back and you don’t care what color the fire engines are....all you care about is putting out the fire because without the house nothing else counts.
As you well know, my friend, Romney stands for nothing.
How, therefore, can he stand for us?
He can’t, and he won’t.
He has to be who and what he is.
Kind of like the old story of the scorpion and the fox.
Yeah, I HATE EVIL as GOD HATES EVIL. You have a problem with that - you have a problem w/God. And I will expose it and denounce it every chance I get.
Don’t worry about a line of work - mitt likes to fire people and doesn’t care about the poor.
As for me, I am VERY WELL protected!
If you make the Most High your dwelling—even the LORD, who is my refuge—
then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent. Psalm 91: 9,10
The fox, of course, in this case, is “conservative” Republicans. They swear the scorpion is going to get them to the other side of the stream.
But we know how that story ends, every time.
There's nothing that can be done about them. They are so full of blind hate and ignorance they cannot be reasoned with.
We need to stay focused on one thing, the total defeat of BHO and control of the congress.
I guess that's two things.
Take your ‘Taliban’ hat off. The Romney campaign is ‘for’ and ‘against’ all those things mentioned. The CFA campaign is something great and I stood in line for over 30 minutes to show my support, and IT doesn’t have to be aligned with the Romney campaign. Period. So, get off your ideological Taliban crap.
It’s not a trap, the maggot does NOT believe in traditional marriage.
If you think he is FOR traditional marriage YOU know nothing about him - just like the con job barry pulled on the left. See, it doesn’t matter the political party - there are *holes in both of them!
Even more pathetic you felt the NEED to give him a cover - just like the media does w/barry. That’s all evil has to do to exist, is have people who support EVIL.
Pretty much how democrats always talk about conservatives who won't bend to their will.
Highly ironic, considering the fact that you folks don't have any sort of reason, or logic, or principle that argues legitimately for your pro-choice democrat socialist candidate. Fear and insults. That's all you've got.
Your posts on this thread kind of give me a different take on the possible meaning of your screen name.
STAY FOCUSED - TODD isn’t running. YOU want to discuss clothing - discuss the underwear ROMNEY wears and WHY!
Try being credible!
Great point. But, of course, like French generals, they’re always fighting the last war, and learning absolutely nothing from any set of circumstances.
TELL US - WHAT CONSERVATIVES are you speaking about?
WHAT???? Tell us - what IS this about! Your liberalism is screaming!
When Mr. RomneyCARE acts conservatively (almost NEVER),
conservatives support him.
The rest of the time, patriots call the
CHOSEN RINO LOSER Milt on his hyperliberal pandering
and worse, and RomneyBOTs like you call it “hate”.
You can’t handle the truth.
Mr. RomneyCARE NEVER supports conservative
causes from FAST & FURIOUS to Obama’s lack of credentials.
Mr. RomneyCARE ALWAYS supports ObamaCARE/taxes
but he calls them something else.
Really? You sure of that?
You know, you may be successful in your campaign to elect BHO and IF you succeed you can always point out to others and say, "SEE, I helped do that".
Personally, I hope you fail.
The only way to accomplish that goal is to stay off the side issues and stick to the winner...the economy. A little off subject but I would love to see a Romney ad where he just stands there and says: “Obama has proven he can’t fix the economy, I can and have a proven track record of success to prove it.” That would be a winning ad I think.
Here are the facts:
Romney supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The state legislature prevented Massachusetts citizens from voting on the issue, because they were afraid the amendment would pass if it was put to a vote.
Deval Patrick was governor when the amendment was formally killed and it was he who orchestrated its defeat by twisting arms. A number of legislators who had previously been in favor of the Constitutional Amendment vote by the citizens suddenly changed their minds. One legislator who was in favor of the amendment even "fell down the stairs" and had to be taken out on a stretcher, so was forced to "miss" the vote.
From the Washington Times:
Only two days after voters in Arizona rejected a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman and seven other states approved their own ballot initiative, Massachusetts lawmakers denied their constituents the opportunity to decide for themselves -- a blatant attempt to stop debate once and for all. In the process, they also trampled the state constitution.
Bay State legislators recessed Thursday without considering whether to place the 170,000-signatory marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot even though the state constitution requires that they vote, and even though the liberal state supreme court, which decreed same-sex "marriage" in the first place, had also previously ordered legislators to vote one way or another. But they wouldn't even put themselves on record as to whether to allow voters a choice two years from now.
To avoid intervention by Gov. Mitt Romney, lawmakers voted 109-87 to recess. Under the state's laborious constitutional-amendment rules, this all but kills the effort to let citizens have a say one way or the other. It deprives the measure of the second consecutive thumbs-up by 25 percent of lawmakers which the constitution requires for a ballot measure to go forward. That means proponents need to start over. The ballot measure must now garner tens of thousands of signatures again.
Off to the torture chamber with you.
Mr. RomneyCARE, HIMSELF and no one else, installed GAY MARRIAGE.
It was, and has been HIS agenda.
Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.
"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."
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.