Posted on 06/26/2015 9:01:50 AM PDT by HonorInPa
After Lawrence v. Texas, we were told that there was no homosexual agenda and that it wasn’t any great sea change in law.
Now Obama says this is only the beginning.
He should be pressed for answers on what other changes he foresees and wants. Man-boy love? Polygamy? Outlawing religious objection to same sex (or extramarital sex)?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Romney is not on the right at all
Every point you made is under a mistaken assumption. Thats not my fault.
“The Trolling of Conservatives” continues apace. I actually had a poster on another board tell me today, and I quote:
“As a Republican, I’d rather have seen Obama win than Rick Santorum”. There just aren’t words to describe that, other than “traitorous”.
If Romney is too “far right” (a joke) then this country deserves to burn.
Let it burn
I don’t care any more.
I will dance around the fire.
Add in the Conservatives who didn’t vote for Mitt and he still would have lost.
Far too many liberals on FR
you confuse the theory of the founders with the actuality of today.
the founders would likely be dismayed at the evolution of the American political system. you can rant and rave about theoretical this and that till hell freezes, but the fact is that there are only two candidates in a presidential race. all others are pretenders, and vain egotistical pretenders at that.
At present, a conservative has only one choice for president and that is the primaryed Republican. by pretending to vote for any one else it to throw away the vote and thereby declare political irrelevancy
now, those are the facts, the real where the rubber meets the road facts
bump
Thats what passes for conservatism on FR lately. And no lightning.
Santorum for all his faults has conservationism on his record. Mitt has none. Zero. And ‘conservatives’ chose romney over him in a primary.
It is what it is. Liberalism. No shock they prefer a Dem lib to an R lib.
They’ve been after Rick Santorum since that day when he declared it was the beginning of a slippery slope.
I’m not saying back him in the primary, just noting that homofascists have been after his hide for a long time.
Romney had no chance from the start, which is why the GOPE backed him.
We slid off the slope, there is just a deep dark pit down there now
Of course Romney is right at all, but voters choose a Marxist over Romney who they see as to far right for them.
Ooops ..NOT right at all....
OK, you thing you know more than the founders. You are dumber than I thought. And that is going some.
you don’t keep mutating the system, lobotomite. You return to first principles if you want it fixed.
I think it’s a deep stanky gutter this nation is in. Every time you think it can’t sink any lower, there it goes. Same leftists pushing us there for 50 years.
Frankly, I can't think of a SINGLE THING that would have happened much differently regardless of which party was in the White House and don't forget that for a majority of the time in question the GOP controlled one or both houses in Congress.
The debate is clearly over whether the world would be in such disarray if Romney was president and not Obama. Obama takes the cake.
Hell, Romney paved the way for Obama.
You seem to forget that Romney is the architect of sodomite "marriage" and that Romneycare (complete with taxpayer-funded abortion) is the prototype for Obamacare.
There’s still time to change your mind and not be so obstinate about voting to vote AGAINST the worst candidate.
I'm pretty sure that the Politburo said the same thing fifty years ago when they were deciding between Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. In the end, the Politburo members mostly got to keep their limousines, luxury apartments, dachas, special stores, etc., while the Russian people suffered.
The goals of the Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same, there's just a different order and they use different terminology.
Fake, like all things Romney.
The draft dodging son of the anti-war presidential candidate of 1968, from a family that has never produced a man to serve America in uniform during it's entire 173 year history here, and whose own sons also refused to serve in the military while their dad ran to be Commander in chief during war time, and Mitt has wanted to homosexualize the military for decades.
So help us all understand. Which of the current or projected Republican candidates meets your definition of “conservative enough” to garner your support in the 2016 General Election.
What are you going to do to help him/her be nominated?
If you fail in getting them nominated, will you accept majority rule and vote for another candidate, more conservative candidate in the General, or sit it out?
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.