Posted on 09/30/2012 5:58:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While Mitt hunkers down with Rob Portman preparing for the Big Debate #1, the finest minds of the conservative blogosphere are explicating the themes that could win the debate for him, narratives that go to the heart of what is wrong with Obama's tenure in office.
Daniel P. Goldman, who also writes under the pen name Spengler, has explained in clear language the Obama sand in the gears that cripples our economy. He uses an excellent rhetorical device to do so, positing three groups of Americans
From PJ Media:
Our first case is one of five million Americans unemployed for more than 27 weeks:
A second American is part owner of a $20 trillion investment fund.
A third American is terrified that her pension fund will go bust (as the Illinois teachers' fund will some time during the next ten years, among many others).
He explains that American #2 won't invest in companies that would hire #1. The problem is that Americans are no longer investing in each other. It is the pension funds and other vehicles for retirement savings which dominate capital markets, and right now they only invest in safe instruments, low-yielding but less risky securities. The reasons are pretty clear:
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
We have an administration that sandbagged one of the biggest contributions to energy independence to become available in decades, namely the Keystone project.
We have a regulatory environment that makes it next to impossible to build a nuclear power plant.
We have a health care program that puts the biggest weight of a new entitlement program right on the economy's weak spot - firms with fifty workers.
We have an administration that can't get its act together to steer the economy away from a fiscal cliff.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Did you vote for Reagan, or would you have voted for him if you were old enough?
Mitt, I have a major dental surgery on Tuesday afternoon. Please don’t make my post-surgery suffering (physical and financial) any worse!
Do you think killing babies is ok?
/johnny
IBTZ
“Many Republicans and conservatives dissatisfied with the prospect of Mitt Romney as the nominee for president are instead focused on re-taking the House and Senate. That goal, while worthy and necessary, is meaningless unless Barack Obama is defeated. The nation is not dealing with a person of character and integrity but someone of single-minded purpose and overwhelming narcissism. Judging by his actions, words and deeds during his first term, he does not intend to work with Congress either Republican or Democrat in his second term, but rather to force his radical agenda on the American people through the power he has usurped or been granted.” ~Steve McCann
You’re all over the (FR) place. Do you think that if Romney’s views on the issues you listed matched yours, the policies of his administration would be markedly different than they are presumably going to be?
I am asking, because I don’t believe they would. I don’t believe they would because I expect that Mitt the POTUS will be surrounded by pretty much the same people who would surround any of his 8 primary competitors had they won. There is a limited number of candidates for these positions, and they are for the most part East Coast moderates who graduated from the same 3-4 universities. No right wing radicals need apply. That and the Congress will the the same as President Gingrich’s Congress would be. My opinion.
Because this thread as it pertains to you and I began with my asking:
If you would list your principles, we would be happy to point out the numerous contradictions.
The question directly relates to the 2012 election if you will just answer it. So, let me ask once again, "Did you vote for Reagan, or would you have voted for him if you were old enough"?
I voted for the most conservative candidate that I could find, back then.
Who, exactly, that was, isn't your damn business.
/johnny
How is that all over the place?
/johnny
All over FR, as I noted. I.E. on several threads. Doh.
I do know of John Quincy Adams though.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
/johnny
OK. I don't want to nitpick but your response only means you voted in 1980 and/or 1984. It doesn't indicate who you voted for.
You wrote: I voted for the most conservative candidate that I could find, back then.
Why don't you do the same now?
You wrote: Who, exactly, that was, isn't your damn business.
Hmm? You only wrote that you voted back in 1980 and/or 1984. Does this mean you may have voted for a 3rd party candidate in 1980 and 1984? I'm sorry but unless you can clearly indicate whether you voted for Reagan or not, we are at something of an impasse.
If you just reply with "Yes" or "No", I will take "Yes" as meaning you voted for Reagan in 1980 and/or 1984.
Similarly, I will take a "No" response as meaning you voted 3rd party in 1980 and/or 1984.
There's a reason for a secret ballot, you are demonstrating the need.
Impasse... That's french for 'we're at a dead end'.
Still not voting for your boy.
/johnny
By virtue of your engaging in discussion on a public forum, a reasonable person would assume that you would disclose who you voted for in a prior election. That you refuse to do so tells me you either are being less than honest with everyone following this thread, or you sense that one or more glaring contradictions in your position concerning Romney are about to be exposed and you are suddenly clamming up.
I am disclosing who I will not vote for in the future. I am not disclosing who I will vote for in the future.
Your false dichotomy is exposed.
I always vote for the most conservative candidate, regardless of party.
/johnny
Fine but what does that have to do with your vote in 1980 and/or 1984? Do I have to go back, assemble a list of all presidential candidates in 1980 and/or 1984 and go through a laborious process of elimination to determine who you voted for?
You wrote: Your false dichotomy is exposed.
For the past several posts, your comments have devolved into name calling and amount to little more than literary juking and jiving.
You want to use your anonymity on an open forum to slam Romney yet suddenly cite privacy concerns as your reason for refusing to discuss your rationale for opposing Romney.
A person could easily regard such behaviour as being consistent with a troll of some sort. You may not be a troll but you are definitely being less than honest with those of us following this thread.
LOL! I guess it takes one’s rhetoric to recognize another. Enjoy your principles, if you can hold on to them. My best regards to you.
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.