The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: thundley4 on April 03, 2012, 11:09:40 PM
-
But he is anybody but Obama.
He strikes me as smarmy and insincere and has acted the whole time like the primary has been a game and that he would be crowned the victor . His mannerisms remind me very much of Obama and other Demonrat politicians.
-
People need to think about USSC nominees and think about who Obama has appointed thus far. I will GLADLY support Romney and I don't like him either.
-
People need to think about USSC nominees and think about who Obama has appointed thus far. I will GLADLY support Romney and I don't like him either.
The counter to that argument, though is that the ones that are closest to retirement are all on the moonbat side of the bench. Ginsberg and Brier mostly, although Kennedy's remaining tenure on the bench scares me a bit.
-
The counter to that argument, though is that the ones that are closest to retirement are all on the moonbat side of the bench. Ginsberg and Brier mostly, although Kennedy's remaining tenure on the bench scares me a bit.
And the counter point to that argument is that we can't afford another four years of Obama.
-
But he is anybody but Obama.
He strikes me as smarmy and insincere and has acted the whole time like the primary has been a game and that he would be crowned the victor . His mannerisms remind me very much of Obama and other Demonrat politicians.
Yeah to all that, plus essentially spending his way to the nomination on the backs of superPACs with corporate/mogul money hat smothered any other voices by factors ranging from 8:1 upward to 50:1, which makes me seriously wonder how deep any support for him could be if it took monetary carpet-bombing to win a series of squeakers.
However, he is not Obama. I'm thinking of getting a bumper sticker made like: "VOTE ROMNEY - Sucks less than Obama."
-
We've all talked about Romney's olive-oil hair, his waffling, his RomneyCare, and his having bought what is amounting to be the RNC nomination.
We've talked about his smarmy behavior and his insincerity and apart from the conservative elite, including Ann Coulter, there aren't a whole lotta folks who have been suckered in by the Prince of Darkness.
But have you ever seen the guy walk? He walks like he's got a dick stuck up his ass. :o
-
I'm not much of a Romney fan either. But when it comes to him or Obama, I will take Romney. As it was said: Anyone but Obama.
-
Romney 2012--better to be ****ed by the guy you back than the guy you don't.
Just kill me now.
-
Romney 2012--better to be ****ed by the guy you back than the guy you don't.
Just kill me now.
Amen.
:banghead:
-
People need to think about USSC nominees and think about who Obama has appointed thus far. I will GLADLY support Romney and I don't like him either.
The counter to that argument, though is that the ones that are closest to retirement are all on the moonbat side of the bench. Ginsberg and Brier mostly, although Kennedy's remaining tenure on the bench scares me a bit.
Then the counter to that argument is this, wouldn't it be nice to replace retiring leftist Justices with at least a moderate leaning towards conservative/conservative?
-
Then the counter to that argument is this, wouldn't it be nice to replace retiring leftist Justices with at least a moderate leaning towards conservative/conservative?
All I'm saying is that using the Supreme court argument as justification to support a RINO when there are still conservatives less RINO candidates in the race is a straw man, and it's stupid.
By most accounts Ronald Reagan was as rock-ribbed a conservative President as we could have asked for in the latter half of this last century; and yet, look at the candidates we got there - O'Conner and Kennedy have been some of the squishiest constitutional jurists ever, just as bad as the full 'tard liberals on the bench in many cases. Yes, we got Antonin Scalia out of him as well, but still...
George H.W. Bush was just as bad. Yes, we got Clarence Thomas through him, but this was the man who also fronted David Souter as a conservative for the court, and Justice Souter went just about as far left as anyone could imagine, the moment the confirmation process was complete.
Hell, for all the good that has come from Justice Roberts and Justice Alito being sustained to the bench, let us not forget that George W. Bush tried to trot out Harriet Miers as a "conservative".
Electing GOP candidates to the president is not a constitutional panacea for getting "originalist" justices on the SCOTUS bench, and we shouldn't be deluding ourselves otherwise.
-
Then the counter to that argument is this, wouldn't it be nice to replace retiring leftist Justices with at least a moderate leaning towards conservative/conservative?
I would love to see Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg replaced by a minority--say, Janice Rogers Brown.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Janice_Rogers_Brown.jpg)
The sound of DUmmie heads exploding would be similar to the artillery barrage that saturated the Iraqi border before the ground phase of Desert Storm got started.
-
All I'm saying is that using the Supreme court argument as justification to support a RINO when there are still conservatives less RINO candidates in the race is a straw man, and it's stupid.
By most accounts Ronald Reagan was as rock-ribbed a conservative President as we could have asked for in the latter half of this last century; and yet, look at the candidates we got there - O'Conner and Kennedy have been some of the squishiest constitutional jurists ever, just as bad as the full 'tard liberals on the bench in many cases. Yes, we got Antonin Scalia out of him as well, but still...
George H.W. Bush was just as bad. Yes, we got Clarence Thomas through him, but this was the man who also fronted David Souter as a conservative for the court, and Justice Souter went just about as far left as anyone could imagine, the moment the confirmation process was complete.
Hell, for all the good that has come from Justice Roberts and Justice Alito being sustained to the bench, let us not forget that George W. Bush tried to trot out Harriet Miers as a "conservative".
Electing GOP candidates to the president is not a constitutional panacea for getting "originalist" justices on the SCOTUS bench, and we shouldn't be deluding ourselves otherwise.
The problem we have though is this, who are our other candidates, Santorum, I even think he's a kook, and Gingrich was basically despised by many on the right for years now, especially when he did the global warming commercial with Pelosi, all of a sudden he's a Savior? no way. I wish Romney had the personality of Reagan, but we need to be realistic here, I want someone who's a savvy businessman because we sure as heck need it right now. As far as Romney making a nomination to the SC, yeah past history shows that it may not be a winner, but that's why we need conservatives in the House and Senate to make sure the person nominated believes in the Constitution, and I'd sure as heck rather take my chances with Romney making a nomination as opposed to Obama doing another 1.
-
I would love to see Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg replaced by a minority--say, Janice Rogers Brown.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Janice_Rogers_Brown.jpg)
The sound of DUmmie heads exploding would be similar to the artillery barrage that saturated the Iraqi border before the ground phase of Desert Storm got started.
I still love this guy:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4_2Qkh9z-4MVfuEKcuprQMAmO2wLL3T0PO4UQ1K6D3SdozSQ_iQ)
-
It's foolish to think that Romney is likely to pick anyone for the Supreme Court who is anywhere to the right of a blue-dog Democrat, in fact it's pretty likely he'd do exactly that. Fiscal (-only) Conservatism doesn't generate much legal controversy that would be a bone of contention in a nominee's record, and that is the only kind of Conservatism that matters to Romney and his big-money backers.
Counterbalanced against that, of course, is that if Obama gets any more picks, they'll be closet-Communist Leftist ideologues.
Basically a choice between being ass-raped with, or without, grease. I'll pick "With."
-
From this website:
http://whyromney.com/#judicial
Judicial Appointments
They claim Romney is not conservative because he did not have a Republican litmus test in his selection of judicial nominees. However, almost all of Romney's appointments, 30 out of 36, were to lower court positions where judges deal directly with criminals at the district and magistrate levels. Rather than political affiliation, Romney looked for effective prosecutorial experience and a record of being tough on crime. As Romney explained when asked about it, "people on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away."
Romney also explained that even though he had only a few chances to appoint judges to higher courts, and no chances to appoint anyone to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, in those cases the criteria changes to include "strict construction, judicial philosophy"(34), which he adhered to in those appointments. In all, only 12.5% of registered voters in Massachusetts are Republican(35) and Romney's 9 Republican nominees count for 25% of his total judicial appointments, representing Republicans twice as well as they are represented in the general voting public. But more important than political affiliation, Romney's appointments represent the relevant conservative qualifications.
-
Yeh, that like totally filled me with confidence, bally. :whatever:
No offense to you, but that quote was just a lot of spin with party labels used in lieu of any specific facts. If you deconstruct it, it doesn't really say anything concrete.
-
closet-Communist Leftist ideologues.
Oh, they won't even be closeted.
-
Oh, they won't even be closeted.
Neither will the guy who's appointing them.
-
We are battling Marxism here. Reagan has passed away, he cannot run. What would all of you have us do? Stay home? Vote Obama? Write someone in?
-
We are battling Marxism here. Reagan has passed away, he cannot run. What would all of you have us do? Stay home? Vote Obama? Write someone in?
Truer words were never spoken. It looks like we are stuck with Romney. Like I have said before there are many differences between Obama and Romney.For example:
#1 Romney will do everything in his power to get the economy rolling while Obama seems like he wants to tear it down
#2 Romney loves this country. The muslim-in-chief is ready to sell us out.
#3 I take Romney at his word that he will work to repeal Obamacare. Not in a million years would Obama do that.
#4 I also take Romney at his word that he will work to improve our energy policy.
Those 4 things are enough for me to vote for him. I do not overlook his shortcomings but he is 10 times better than Obama. He is a RINO but that is a hell of a lot better than a commie loving, Muslim, anti-American, POS like Obama.
-
Well, with any kind of luck, SCOTUS will shitcan Obamacare as is.
Should Romney be elected, he won't have to work to repeal Obamacare because the Supremes will have already done the dirty work for him and Congress.
The thing to watch for will be what'll Romney do to re-create socialized medicine and bring it back into play. How will he do that? What'll the legislation have in it? What kind of mandate will it have?
I am not at all confident that Romney won't do something to bring that 9-headed Hydra back into play.
-
Well, with any kind of luck, SCOTUS will shitcan Obamacare as is.
Should Romney be elected, he won't have to work to repeal Obamacare because the Supremes will have already done the dirty work for him and Congress.
The thing to watch for will be what'll Romney do to re-create socialized medicine and bring it back into play. How will he do that? What'll the legislation have in it? What kind of mandate will it have?
I am not at all confident that Romney won't do something to bring that 9-headed Hydra back into play.
But, I seem to remember Romney saying something that the states have the right to do what he did in Massachusetts. He said that the Feds have no business doing that.
-
The key is not to elect good men but to reward self-interested men for doing the right thing.
--Milton Friedman (more or less)
-
But, I seem to remember Romney saying something that the states have the right to do what he did in Massachusetts. He said that the Feds have no business doing that.
That right there is a perfect example of an asshole talking out of both sides of its orifice. It's difficult to do, and only the best can pull it off (without dangling a piece of toilet paper from the emanating dingleberries), but our boy Mitt is certainly one of them.
-
Well, with any kind of luck, SCOTUS will shitcan Obamacare as is.
Should Romney be elected, he won't have to work to repeal Obamacare because the Supremes will have already done the dirty work for him and Congress.
The thing to watch for will be what'll Romney do to re-create socialized medicine and bring it back into play. How will he do that? What'll the legislation have in it? What kind of mandate will it have?
I am not at all confident that Romney won't do something to bring that 9-headed Hydra back into play.
The S.C. overturning the entire bill is not a lead pipe cinch. If elected, Romney will have to get Congress's approval for any type of health care legislation to get passed. Repubs will make huge gains in the Senate and they will not be ready to pass any socialized medicine plan. That is not going to happen. They see how unpopular Obamacare is. Plus, they want to get reelected. One thing that I am certain of is that if Obama wins a second term and the S.C. throws the health care bill out, he will work day and night to REINSTE IT. You can go to the bank on that.
-
Ya know, I see a lot of people thinking that a RINO like Romney would be okay to vote for, because he'll obviously have a conservative house and senate to keep him toeing the line (or other, similar assumptions). As if JUST voting the Republican ticket down the line will solve all our problems, and having Republicans back at the helm of our "Ship of state" will be enough to pull us out of the death spiral The ReichsMessiah and congress have pushed us into.
:argh:
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any signs of the SEIU/ACORN vote fraud machine twirling it's mustache in frustration as it slither's off, stage left. I see them changing names and laying low, trying not to draw attention to the same old shinanigans they've been allowed to become adept at with relative impunity. I see no signs that Obama isn't fully intent on spending the stimulus money he's been hoarding to buy votes in "battleground" states, just like FDR did in 1932.
Furthermore, I see no signs that the Republican leadership even recognize these threats for what they are. Theoretically, we elected a bunch of TEA partiers into the House during the mid term, and I've been distinctly underwhelmed by their presence on the political stage. Instead, I've seen a whole lot of business as usual, the hypothetically conservative House speaker engaging The ReichsMessiah in friendly rounds of golf, running up the debt ceiling whenever The ReichsMessiah runs out of "money" on his gub'mint credit card, and happily passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution and thus granting tacit approval of Obama's usurping of their traditional restraint on the growth of government through the circumvented budgetary process.
So the question becomes, just how exactly is the Republican Congress in 2013 going to be substantially different from the Republican Congresses of recent memory? You know, the ones that - under President Bush's watch - added 3.9 TRILLION bucks to the indentured servitude contracts of all our children, grandchildren et.al, passed the "Patriot Act" like it was a *******ed good thing, passed the McLame campaign "reform" debacle (because, if it was really a travesty against the first amendment, the SCOTUS would shoot it down, right?), and tried to ram amnesty for illegal aliens down the public's throat? What factor or combination of them do you folks see that is going to make things significantly different from the "Business as usual" attitude we've all seen?
-
Ya know, I see a lot of people thinking that a RINO like Romney would be okay to vote for, because he'll obviously have a conservative house and senate to keep him toeing the line (or other, similar assumptions). As if JUST voting the Republican ticket down the line will solve all our problems, and having Republicans back at the helm of our "Ship of state" will be enough to pull us out of the death spiral The ReichsMessiah and congress have pushed us into.
:argh:
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any signs of the SEIU/ACORN vote fraud machine twirling it's mustache in frustration as it slither's off, stage left. I see them changing names and laying low, trying not to draw attention to the same old shinanigans they've been allowed to become adept at with relative impunity. I see no signs that Obama isn't fully intent on spending the stimulus money he's been hoarding to buy votes in "battleground" states, just like FDR did in 1932.
Furthermore, I see no signs that the Republican leadership even recognize these threats for what they are. Theoretically, we elected a bunch of TEA partiers into the House during the mid term, and I've been distinctly underwhelmed by their presence on the political stage. Instead, I've seen a whole lot of business as usual, the hypothetically conservative House speaker engaging The ReichsMessiah in friendly rounds of golf, running up the debt ceiling whenever The ReichsMessiah runs out of "money" on his gub'mint credit card, and happily passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution and thus granting tacit approval of Obama's usurping of their traditional restraint on the growth of government through the circumvented budgetary process.
So the question becomes, just how exactly is the Republican Congress in 2013 going to be substantially different from the Republican Congresses of recent memory? You know, the ones that - under President Bush's watch - added 3.9 TRILLION bucks to the indentured servitude contracts of all our children, grandchildren et.al, passed the "Patriot Act" like it was a *******ed good thing, passed the McLame campaign "reform" debacle (because, if it was really a travesty against the first amendment, the SCOTUS would shoot it down, right?), and tried to ram amnesty for illegal aliens down the public's throat? What factor or combination of them do you folks see that is going to make things significantly different from the "Business as usual" attitude we've all seen?
Let's see. 20 years of austerity might help dig us out of our debt problem. That is what is need for starters. The Ryan plan is a joke. It only slows down the growth of government. Name me a politicians that will eliminate whole agencies and lay off hundreds of thousand of federal employees and cut every agency remaining. None that I know of cause they all want to get reelected. Name me a politician that will drastically cut Medicare and Medicaid. That is the big banana. Eliminate payments/benefits to those who have not paid into Medicare or Social Security. We are screwed because none of these things will happen. Even if we dug up Reagan and every member of Congress was a conservative, it would not happen. So, all of our candidates will be flawed.
The Repubs will tweak the budget a little bit and kick the can down the road. That is a hell of a lot better than an Obama balls to wall spending spree that he will put in place if he is reelected.
I am going to vote for Romney not because I like him but cause he will be 10 times better than Obama who I feel will finish destroying this great county.
-
Name me a politicians that will eliminate whole agencies and lay off hundreds of thousand of federal employees and cut every agency remaining.
Ron Paul? Hey, you asked.
-
The way I see it, every day decisions are much like choosing who to vote for for president, it's a risk assessment. they are also similar because you almost always have a stark choice.
While it is true one typically will wistfully desire to have other options available it is fairly rare. Like I said, choices are often stark.
The last cycle ended up being an unpleasant affair but I did what McCain's mother advised, I held my nose and pulled the lever for McCain.
By the time the primaries get to me it will just be academic (again), I already see the choice that is going to be presented.
Romney...nah I ain't no big fan but it is going to be what it is.
Politics is a nasty business. Quite frankly I understand why the best people don't get involved on a national level, hell the state level is bad enough.
But the choice that will be presented will be stark and I believe that we already understand what the choice is going to be. I've assesed the risk and have already made the decision.
Romney
Edit: Just stupid typos.
-
So the question becomes, just how exactly is the Republican Congress in 2013 going to be substantially different from the Republican Congresses of recent memory? You know, the ones that - under President Bush's watch - added 3.9 TRILLION bucks to the indentured servitude contracts of all our children, grandchildren et.al, passed the "Patriot Act" like it was a *******ed good thing, passed the McLame campaign "reform" debacle (because, if it was really a travesty against the first amendment, the SCOTUS would shoot it down, right?), and tried to ram amnesty for illegal aliens down the public's throat? What factor or combination of them do you folks see that is going to make things significantly different from the "Business as usual" attitude we've all seen?
The difference between then and now? The Tea Party Movement.
-
I'd like to ask DefiantSix a question.
What is the alternative?
-
The difference between then and now? The Tea Party Movement.
Really? They could have scoring political points on Obama and Reid by the truckload by passing budget bills and letting those clowns go on record shooting them down. They could have held firm on TWO increases in the debt ceiling now, but didn't. I notice they've been remarkably silent on Obama's threats to SCOTUS this past week.
How then, are the TEA Party congresscritters any different from the "Business as usual" Republican leadership again? :confused:
-
I'd like to ask DefiantSix a question.
What is the alternative?
Honestly, I don't know. But going through another pile of horseshit looking for a *******ed pony is getting old pretty damned fast. And I'm getting pretty damned offended by people who continue to sell me the line "Oh, it'll get better when the Republicans have control".
I'm about half tempted to say that the better option is to let The ReichsMessiah win the election, drive the nation into another civil war, the we whoop their asses, and start over the way the founders intended us to go. At this point, it seems the LEAST painful of a whole mess of painful options for getting our country back on track.
-
Honestly, I don't know. But going through another pile of horseshit looking for a *******ed pony is getting old pretty damned fast. And I'm getting pretty damned offended by people who continue to sell me the line "Oh, it'll get better when the Republicans have control".
I'm about half tempted to say that the better option is to let The ReichsMessiah win the election, drive the nation into another civil war, the we whoop their asses, and start over the way the founders intended us to go. At this point, it seems the LEAST painful of a whole mess of painful options for getting our country back on track.
I suppose I can understand where you are coming from, sorta like letting the moth touch the flame in order to understand that it burns.
I guess, from my prospective, it seems that the moth never learns quickly enough to avoid going down in flames.
Yeah, I know, it's a stupid analogy but...what vote for the one or not vote. is that what you are suggesting?
I don't think I can do that.
-
Gods no. I'm not saying "Don't vote", but please, don't go into the voting booth under any illusions that things are going to be any better under a Romney presidency than under another four years of the SCOAMF in Chief. Those two agree on too many *******ed things, bigger government being chief among them.
-
Gods no. I'm not saying "Don't vote", but please, don't go into the voting booth under any illusions that things are going to be any better under a Romney presidency than under another four years of the SCOAMF in Chief. Those two agree on too many *******ed things, bigger government being chief among them.
Trust me DefiantSix, I understand where you are coming from and I am sympathetic to your views.
But at the end of the day we are back to a choice, a risk assessment.
We are back at the bottom line and the bottom line from my view point is the one must go down.
-
The way I am looking at is that Romney is like Obama on a couple of things, but, I would vote King Kong before I vote for another four years of the megalomaniac Obama.
-
Really? They could have scoring political points on Obama and Reid by the truckload by passing budget bills and letting those clowns go on record shooting them down. They could have held firm on TWO increases in the debt ceiling now, but didn't. I notice they've been remarkably silent on Obama's threats to SCOTUS this past week.
How then, are the TEA Party congresscritters any different from the "Business as usual" Republican leadership again? :confused:
Some of the new tea party Repubs did vote against passing the budget bills and increasing the debt. We need to get more of them elected. Bonehead Boehner is an ass kissing RINO. Need to kick his ass to the curb and get a real conservative as Speaker. FYI, freshman congress critters do not have a hell of a lot of clout. It is go along to get along if you want good committee assignments. Buck the old dogs when you first get in there and you will find out how the cow ate the cabbage. I am not pleased with how the system works but it is what it is. It is really not that confusing.
-
Really? They could have scoring political points on Obama and Reid by the truckload by passing budget bills and letting those clowns go on record shooting them down. They could have held firm on TWO increases in the debt ceiling now, but didn't. I notice they've been remarkably silent on Obama's threats to SCOTUS this past week.
How then, are the TEA Party congresscritters any different from the "Business as usual" Republican leadership again? :confused:
Tea Party backed Candidates are against increasing the debt, are for cuts, you need enough of them elected though to actually make a difference.
-
Some of the new tea party Repubs did vote against passing the budget bills and increasing the debt. We need to get more of them elected. Bonehead Boehner is an ass kissing RINO. Need to kick his ass to the curb and get a real conservative as Speaker. FYI, freshman congress critters do not have a hell of a lot of clout. It is go along to get along if you want good committee assignments. Buck the old dogs when you first get in there and you will find out how the cow ate the cabbage. I am not pleased with how the system works but it is what it is. It is really not that confusing.
The problem is that WE cannot vote in good, conservative reps as fast as the "Old Guard" can corrupt them into "the system". The ones that cannot be corrupted by the RINO leadership are being isolated by them, and then set up to have their political careers destroyed. They're corrupt, venal bastards; dirty tricks and "not playing fair" is all part of the modus operandi for them.
-
Tea Party backed Candidates are against increasing the debt, are for cuts, you need enough of them elected though to actually make a difference.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I AM saying that we'll never get enough of them in fast enough to be a threat to the RINO leadership and it's power base. They - republican and democrat alike - have stacked the deck against any serious threats to their status quo. Those they can corrupt - all the while mouthing the conservative rhetoric as if they were our staunchest allies - they will; like I just said though, those they can't corrupt they will ostracize, isolate and destroy.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you. I AM saying that we'll never get enough of them in fast enough to be a threat to the RINO leadership and it's power base. They - republican and democrat alike - have stacked the deck against any serious threats to their status quo. Those they can corrupt - all the while mouthing the conservative rhetoric as if they were our staunchest allies - they will; like I just said though, those they can't corrupt they will ostracize, isolate and destroy.
I have no representation in the Senate, I have Lautenberg and Menendez, I'll take anyone over them any day.
I'm not a fan of Boehner or McConnell at all, if it was up to me Bachmann would be the Speaker of the House. I just have to hope that enough good Republicans will be elected because the alternative is a nightmare to think about.
-
I have no representation in the Senate, I have Lautenberg and Menendez, I'll take anyone over them any day.
You are not supposed to have "representation" in the Senate. The Senate is there to express the will of the individual States and are SUPPOSED to be appointed by their State legislature to Congress. Your representation comes from the House of Representatives.
Thanks to Yankee ****bags after the Civil War, the Senate has been turned into a second HOR since the 17th Amendment was passed, and it's all been downhill for this country since then.
-
Gods no. I'm not saying "Don't vote", but please, don't go into the voting booth under any illusions that things are going to be any better under a Romney presidency than under another four years of the SCOAMF in Chief. Those two agree on too many *******ed things, bigger government being chief among them.
Being it's Romney, it makes it easier for me not to have too high of expectations.
It would be nice if he had a little fire. A little passion. And could turn it on the Media and 0bama every once in a while.
-
You are not supposed to have "representation" in the Senate. The Senate is there to express the will of the individual States and are SUPPOSED to be appointed by their State legislature to Congress. Your representation comes from the House of Representatives.
Thanks to Yankee ****bags after the Civil War, the Senate has been turned into a second HOR since the 17th Amendment was passed.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
"The Senate is there to express the will of the individual States and are SUPPOSED to be appointed by their State legislature to Congress. "
The part that I am not getting from your argument is this "and are SUPPOSED to be appointed by their State legislature to Congress"
I don't necessarily disagree I am just looking for your understanding further explained.
-
Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Your state government appointed Sentors until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Since then, the election of Senators has been done by popular election just like the House of Representatives. The 17th Amendment was passed in retaliation for the Civil War and to punish the southern states.
-
I'm just chiming in to let you know that I am still studing this for what it's worth.
If I still understand the arguement I am inclined to agree with the 17th amendment.
-
I'm going to happily vote for Romney because, when I do, I'm not looking at Romney's face, but Obama and his bitch wife waving in Marine Corps One on the way to Andrews to be flown back to that shithole South Chicago for the last time.
-
Your state government appointed Sentors until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Since then, the election of Senators has been done by popular election just like the House of Representatives. The 17th Amendment was passed in retaliation for the Civil War and to punish the southern states.
...and one of the worst mistakes this nation has ever committed.
-
It would be nice if he had a little fire. A little passion. And could turn it on the Media and 0bama every once in a while.
I think that is coming. If he wins Pa, Santorum is toast. Then he will focus on the lousy job that Obama has done.
-
I'm going to happily vote for Romney because, when I do, I'm not looking at Romney's face, but Obama and his bitch wife waving in Marine Corps One on the way to Andrews to be flown back to that shithole South Chicago for the last time.
I would gladly pitch in for the cost of their Samsonite.
-
The problem is that WE cannot vote in good, conservative reps as fast as the "Old Guard" can corrupt them into "the system". The ones that cannot be corrupted by the RINO leadership are being isolated by them, and then set up to have their political careers destroyed. They're corrupt, venal bastards; dirty tricks and "not playing fair" is all part of the modus operandi for them.
I fear you are correct, particularly concerning how the "Old Guard" -- on BOTH sides of the aisle -- tend to corrupt the noobs into the system. The noobs quickly learn that doing what they're told to to, when they're told to do it, is the secret of a long, fruitful, wasteful, but profitable career in politics.
Reelection is the panacea for ALL of these chumps because it once again puts them in power. With power comes money and membership at that exclusive club.
-
I'm going to happily vote for Romney because, when I do, I'm not looking at Romney's face, but Obama and his bitch wife waving in Marine Corps One on the way to Andrews to be flown back to that shithole South Chicago for the last time.
H5
-
I would gladly pitch in for the cost of their Samsonite.
You already are. You think they'll be traveling light and on their own dime?
-
Truer words were never spoken. It looks like we are stuck with Romney. Like I have said before there are many differences between Obama and Romney.For example:
#1 Romney will do everything in his power to get the economy rolling while Obama seems like he wants to tear it down
#2 Romney loves this country. The muslim-in-chief is ready to sell us out.
#3 I take Romney at his word that he will work to repeal Obamacare. Not in a million years would Obama do that.
#4 I also take Romney at his word that he will work to improve our energy policy.
Those 4 things are enough for me to vote for him. I do not overlook his shortcomings but he is 10 times better than Obama. He is a RINO but that is a hell of a lot better than a commie loving, Muslim, anti-American, POS like Obama.
And we'll have a heckuva lot more influence over Romney than 0bama. Especially if we increase our numbers in the House and Senate. We have a lot of conservative congressmen who haven't been able to enact anything because 1/3 of the government isn't much of a voice. And many of them were new. It takes time to learn the ropes in that town. By the time the Republican wins the White House they'll be ready.
Cindie
-
I'm not disagreeing with you. I AM saying that we'll never get enough of them in fast enough to be a threat to the RINO leadership and it's power base. They - republican and democrat alike - have stacked the deck against any serious threats to their status quo. Those they can corrupt - all the while mouthing the conservative rhetoric as if they were our staunchest allies - they will; like I just said though, those they can't corrupt they will ostracize, isolate and destroy.
We only lose when we give up. Where we are now has been a dream of the left going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson. Whether good or bad, conservatives...AMERICANS...people who love this country have seriously taken our eye off the ball. The snowball really started rolling right after WWII and I don't know why. That was one of the most patriotic generations in history and they raised a generation of Marxist hippies. Those hippies took over the media, the schools, Hollywood (a very influential propaganda tool) and a good portion of the judicial branch.
Now that it's reached critical mass we're waking up and it's not too late. They generation coming up behind us, our children's generation is much more conservative. I just missed the whole "peace & love" thing and grew up in the 70's, the so called "apathetic generation" but my children's generation reminds me more of my grandparent's generation (or parents generation...your mileage may vary, my parent's were pretty much at the tail end of the hippie era but my husband's parents were WWII vets). They're very patriotic. 911 had a bigger impact on them then many of us realize. All the propaganda in the world doesn't matter when you see your country attacked.
0bama was the left's last hurrah! I think even they know this that's why he (they) rushed to get through as many of their socialist ideals as he (they) could (get enough through and the country will be too dependent regardless of their values). So we start with Romney and work our way right. And we make sure we teach our children and our grandchildren what it means to be an American and we remind them of what we could lose. Those who watched the towers fall must never forget that feeling. And we MUST listen to the voices of our vets. Almost all of our WWII vets are gone and our Vietnam vets are getting older (my uncle's in his late 60's). I've met very few liberal vets and I've never met any that didn't have a deep sense of patriotism. Except John Kerry...who served in Vietnam. And John Murtha, but the Corps disowned him a long time ago.
Sometimes I think when we have a leader like Reagan we see it as a means to the end. Given the same opportunity the left would see that election as a 1st step. And that's the one lesson we CAN learn from them. Granted, it means we have to work harder than them...our side is the one that keeps the economic engine of the country going, we fight the wars and (since we aren't killing them in the womb) are raising most of the next generation...but we've proved that we can with the Tea Party movement. And our voices were louder, stronger (and more in line with the rest of the country) than any occupy movement in the country. We have power but they have always been the toddler screaming and throwing a tantrum in the middle of the toy store. Our mistake has been to buy them the stupid toy to shut them up so we can get back to work. And now they know that gives them power...the more they yell the more they get. We have to "just say no" (Nancy was right in so many ways) because dependency has become a drug for them.
So Romney and a conservative house, a few senate seats are a start. There are more of us. We're more patriotic. We have more power. We just have to decide this is the first step on an already strong foundation (thanks to our founders) and never take our eyes off the goal. If they can do it without a quarter of the talent and resources, certainly we can.
Cindie
-
I'm still pissed at the smear job that was done on Herman Cain. In my opinion, that was the libturds greatest victory since they lost the house.
Yes, I say "victory." That, and demonizing every not-Romney candidate we had (except for Huntsman). But Cain was special. While he showed some inconsistencies that ALL the candidates displayed (and was still scads better than Obama w/o teleprompter), Herman Cain represented, in my opinion, the best GOP candidate we have had since Ronald Reagan.
So Romney it is. I'm not really angry at his carpet bombing, but his transformation toward conservatism had best be done damn quick.
In addition, we need to make sure we take over the Senate. We have 23 dems up for reelection; more than half of those races are too close to call. Other than Snowe's seat in Maine, I doubt we will lose any on our side of the aisle. I'd like to see a 54-55 GOP majority in the Senate, and for the House to get more conservative even if they don't pick up too many more seats.
This will be MANDATORY. We HAVE to have complete and unambiguous control of Congress for Romney's moderate views to be negated somewhat. I'm going to start focusing on Congressional races in a couple of weeks, and yes, I WILL support anti-Obama Romney in the general election.
One more thing: He had BETTER get a conservative as VP, someone who will be just as conservative in 2020 (unless he wants another non-presidential VP like Dick Cheney). I will absolutely CRINGE if he gets a Bush-type or a Christie-type.
-
Thank you GOP Congress, for reminding me of Herman Cain.
Whatever happened to the accusers, and Gloria AllRed ?
Not one peep since they were able to get him to withdraw. If there was a principle, wouldn't they have stuck to it ?
I must conclude there was no substance whatsoever behind their accusations, just like the Borking, and high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill..
-
People need to think about USSC nominees and think about who Obama has appointed thus far. I will GLADLY support Romney and I don't like him either.
Getting rid of Eric "My People" Holder is why I will vote for Romney in November.
-
Supreme Court is the issue for me.
-
Your state government appointed Sentors until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Since then, the election of Senators has been done by popular election just like the House of Representatives. The 17th Amendment was passed in retaliation for the Civil War and to punish the southern states.
I think you're wrong about the effect of it, though; if appointed by State legislatures, they'd be MORE likely to be as subject to the present whims of the populace than they are now. I particularly shudder to think what kind of dirtbags and criminals the Illinois legislature would pick and send to the US Senate.
-
I think you're wrong about the effect of it, though; if appointed by State legislatures, they'd be MORE likely to be as subject to the present whims of the populace than they are now. I particularly shudder to think what kind of dirtbags and criminals the Illinois legislature would pick and send to the US Senate.
That's why there'd be one Dem, and one Republican from New York--the Assembly would appoint some thief, and the Senate would appoint a slightly more palatable thief.
-
I will vote for Romney before I ever vote for Obama. Then I would vote for a gorilla before I vote for Obama. Basically, it comes down to anyone but Obama.
-
I will vote for Romney before I ever vote for Obama. Then I would vote for a gorilla before I vote for Obama. Basically, it comes down to anyone but Obama.
And that's the name of that tune. It's mine too.
-
I think you're wrong about the effect of it, though; if appointed by State legislatures, they'd be MORE likely to be as subject to the present whims of the populace than they are now. I particularly shudder to think what kind of dirtbags and criminals the Illinois legislature would pick and send to the US Senate.
Couldn't have been any worse that Bullis, Obama, or Durbin.
-
I think you're wrong about the effect of it, though; if appointed by State legislatures, they'd be MORE likely to be as subject to the present whims of the populace than they are now. I particularly shudder to think what kind of dirtbags and criminals the Illinois legislature would pick and send to the US Senate.
Well, even with the current system, Delaware got Plugs Biden and kept him until he decided to start rimming Barry.
Plugs has redefined the term "idiot" several times over.
-
The Seventeenth Amendment was added because some of the States were slow in appointing Senators and those States were going unrepresented. I think it is a good thing.
-
I do not like Romney either. He is barely half way to the 1144 delegates needed.
I am saddened that Rick Santorum dropped out, he said he had to because he was not receiving enough money to continue.
Rick did not need to get all the way to 1144 delegates, he only needed enough to keep Romney from reaching that number and force a brokered convention.
Newt ain't gonna get that done.
Just prior to the April 4 primaries, Rick had won 15 States to Romney's 11 and newt's 2.
Rick won more counties than all of the other candidates combined times 2.
Rick won the less populated Red States with fewer delegates. Romney won higher populated blue states that will vote Obama in November, and the territories that cannot even vote in the General Election.
I weep
-
The Seventeenth Amendment was added because some of the States were slow in appointing Senators and those States were going unrepresented. I think it is a good thing.
That's bullshit. The 17th amendment was created by progressives to weaken states rights. It was a DISASTROUS amendment that needs to be repealed.
-
BTW, the way senators were nominated and appointed when the nation was founded was part of an internal checks and balances in the US Congress. If the people did start getting dumb as **** and wanting to vote themselves the treasury, their representatives would be stopped by the senators, which is the higher branch of Congress. It was a crucial tenet to federalism and we've been weakened as a Republic due to its passing. The reason you have idiots calling this nation a "Democracy" now without hesitation was caused by the 17th Amendment. Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, it's when, not if, this nation and greatest experiment on the planet, ceases to exist. It's gonna happen. We're at, what, 49% of the population that pays nothing in federal income taxes? We simply cannot exist as a nation when you have people hellbent on making that number even higher. It's a numbers game and they're not on our side.
-
That's bullshit. The 17th amendment was created by progressives to weaken states rights. It was a DISASTROUS amendment that needs to be repealed.
Unless you were there in 1913 and can offer first hand knowledge, I will defer to this:
The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators. As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives. Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment17/
-
I didn't have to f'n be there in 1913 and the case your showing us shows that it was changed due to popular opinion. This nation wasn't based on the rule of the majority, but the rule of law. If you think determining the direction of this nation should be based on popular opinion, you're part of the reason the nation is ****ed up and we have 49% of Americans not paying a damn thing in federal income taxes. States have NO representation in DC since that hideous amendment was passed. I'll defer to the founders on how this nation should be set up. You can defer to the progressives all you want.
-
And a deadlock, IMO, isn't always a bad thing. There was a reason it was set up that way. Our entire f'n election system JOKE is nothing but a popularity contest now.
-
And a deadlock, IMO, isn't always a bad thing. There was a reason it was set up that way. Our entire f'n election system JOKE is nothing but a popularity contest now.
BTW, the way senators were nominated and appointed when the nation was founded was part of an internal checks and balances in the US Congress. If the people did start getting dumb as **** and wanting to vote themselves the treasury, their representatives would be stopped by the senators, which is the higher branch of Congress.
Theoretically it is a sound policy, but what would stop liberal states from appointing the exact same type of senators that get elected now? The most liberal senators come from liberal states that are spending themselves into debt.
-
You guys side with progressives like Taft and Wilson. I'll continue to side with Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and the other founders. There is a reason we're more like a mob-rule democracy now than an actual Republic, and it would appear your thought process is why it is that way.
-
Btw, we're one step away from being a true, mob-rule Democracy doomed to fail. That step being getting rid of the electoral college and the same mindset that got the ball rolling on the 17th. When that happens, we have 5 years before we're completely Socialist. The reason we were set up as a federalist Republic is because the founders understood the idiocy and greed of the masses. No, not the DUmmies definition of greed. If people can vote to have your shit, they'll do it and we, as a culture, have become weaker as shown by how many people will vote for anyone that's promising them something.
-
Btw, we're one step away from being a true, mob-rule Democracy doomed to fail. That step being getting rid of the electoral college and the same mindset that got the ball rolling on the 17th. When that happens, we have 5 years before we're completely Socialist. The reason we were set up as a federalist Republic is because the founders understood the idiocy and greed of the masses. No, not the DUmmies definition of greed. If people can vote to have your shit, they'll do it and we, as a culture, have become weaker as shown by how many people will vote for anyone that's promising them something.
Because of Corzine NJ is 1 of those States trying to change from the electoral college to votes determining the winner of the Presidential election, I think they need 3/4 of the States to sign on to make that happen, just curious though, could that stand up to a Constitutional challenge?
-
Because of Corzine NJ is 1 of those States trying to change from the electoral college to votes determining the winner of the Presidential election, I think they need 3/4 of the States to sign on to make that happen, just curious though, could that stand up to a Constitutional challenge?
Looks like its gonna depend on popular opinion since that's how far we've regressed.
-
Looks like its gonna depend on popular opinion since that's how far we've regressed.
That wasn't the intent of the Founders though, which is why I think a Constitutional Challenge would be warranted.
-
That wasn't the intent of the Founders though, which is why I think a Constitutional Challenge would be warranted.
If they make it an amendment, you can't challenge it on constitutional grounds because, at that point, it's part of the constitution. Even that POS 17th is constitutional. Don't ever underestimate the stupidity of the masses. Human nature is always the monkey wrench thrown into the spokes of a good and effective government.
-
If they make it an amendment, you can't challenge it on constitutional grounds because, at that point, it's part of the constitution. Even that POS 17th is constitutional. Don't ever underestimate the stupidity of the masses. Human nature is always the monkey wrench thrown into the spokes of a good and effective government.
I guess the only thing we have going for us is the south won't sign on to it.
-
BTW, I'm not the most conservative of people here, some think I'm a Libertarian, which isn't true. I'm an independent conservative with libertarian (small L) leanings on social matters. I try to default to freedom as much as I can, to quote Boortz. On this issue, no one is budging me. I've studied the ramifications along with the history that accompanies it. In a classical sense, I'm a classical liberal. That definition explains many people here.
-
BTW, I'm not the most conservative of people here, some think I'm a Libertarian, which isn't true. I'm an independent conservative with libertarian (small L) leanings on social matters. I try to default to freedom as much as I can, to quote Boortz. On this issue, no one is budging me. I've studied the ramifications along with the history that accompanies it. In a classical sense, I'm a classical liberal. That definition explains many people here.
To quote Clarice Starling "But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at me ?" I would be curious to see how accurate you are.
-
To quote Clarice Starling "But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at me ?" I would be curious to see how accurate you are.
This isn't DU or FR. There is a broad array of opinions here. We don't walk lockstep. Probably the one main thing that binds us is fiscal conservatism and the fact that we don't give a shit about political correctness. I hope that never changes. Unlike Jim at FR, I won't ever tell you what this site is, supports, and what we all collectively believe in. "I" do not make this site. Everyone here makes this site.
-
This isn't DU or FR. There is a broad array of opinions here. We don't walk lockstep. Probably the one main thing that binds us is fiscal conservatism and the fact that we don't give a shit about political correctness. I hope that never changes. Unlike Jim at FR, I won't ever tell you what this site is, supports, and what we all collectively believe in. "I" do not make this site. Everyone here makes this site.
Fair enough. Thanks.
-
Because of Corzine NJ is 1 of those States trying to change from the electoral college to votes determining the winner of the Presidential election, I think they need 3/4 of the States to sign on to make that happen, just curious though, could that stand up to a Constitutional challenge?
By definition, a Constitutional Amendment is Constitutional. However, if they put a expiration date on ratification, if they don't get the right number of states to ratify, poof, it's like it never happened
-
By definition, a Constitutional Amendment is Constitutional. However, if they put a expiration date on ratification, if they don't get the right number of states to ratify, poof, it's like it never happened
Tell that to the 16th.
-
Tell that to the 16th.
Why isn't the 16th Constitutional?
-
Why isn't the 16th Constitutional?
You've never heard all those people out there saying it was never ratified by enough states?
-
You've never heard all those people out there saying it was never ratified by enough states?
Never have. Interesting thought.
-
Just listening to Rush and he played a clip of Romney on Kudlow and Romney talking about adopting some lib ideas about tax breaks to the wealthy, and Rush was at a dinner and they were talking about Romney and his plans about eliminating mortgage deductibility on 2nd homes, special outreach to hispanics and women, capital gains tax on those making over $200,000. This isn't good. :censored:
-
Just listening to Rush and he played a clip of Romney on Kudlow and Romney talking about adopting some lib ideas about tax breaks to the wealthy, and Rush was at a dinner and they were talking about Romney and his plans about eliminating mortgage deductibility on 2nd homes, special outreach to hispanics and women, capital gains tax on those making over $200,000. This isn't good. :censored:
Yeah, but getting them through a Tea Party-inspired House of Representatives is going to be tough, to put it mildly.
-
Yeah, but getting them through a Tea Party-inspired House of Representatives is going to be tough, to put it mildly.
How do you figure? :confused:
Teh ReichsMessiah has been able to get TWO raises in the debt ceiling through a theoretically TEA-party inspired House. If they'll bend over and grab the ankles for the Immaculated one who is a Dhimmi'Rat, how much more readily would they bend over and grab the ankles for the Mitt Wit, he having the magic (R) beside his name, and they being unwilling to be portrayed as "obstructionist".
-
How do you figure? :confused:
Teh ReichsMessiah has been able to get TWO raises in the debt ceiling through a theoretically TEA-party inspired House. If they'll bend over and grab the ankles for the Immaculated one who is a Dhimmi'Rat, how much more readily would they bend over and grab the ankles for the Mitt Wit, he having the magic (R) beside his name, and they being unwilling to be portrayed as "obstructionist".
First, we need to get more conservatives elected in both houses. Second, get rid of that wimpy kiss ass bonehead named Boehner. Same with McConnell
-
First, we need to get more conservatives elected in both houses. Second, get rid of that wimpy kiss ass bonehead named Boehner. Same with McConnell
:cheersmate:
-
We need a tough and brass conservative in the presidency also. Not someone who is going to be soft and *****. Like McCain was. He was a wimp, if he would have went after Obama a little more, he would have had a better chance of winning. I am hoping that Romney goes after Obama with both barrels. He needs to if he wants to have a chance of getting elected.
-
We need a tough and brass conservative in the presidency also. Not someone who is going to be soft and *****. Like McCain was. He was a wimp, if he would have went after Obama a little more, he would have had a better chance of winning. I am hoping that Romney goes after Obama with both barrels. He needs to if he wants to have a chance of getting elected.
Romney needs a VP pick like McCain had in Sarah Palin, but Romney needs to turn that person loose, and not keep a tight rein on them like the RNC did with Sarah.
-
We need a tough and brass conservative in the presidency also. Not someone who is going to be soft and *****. Like McCain was. He was a wimp, if he would have went after Obama a little more, he would have had a better chance of winning. I am hoping that Romney goes after Obama with both barrels. He needs to if he wants to have a chance of getting elected.
I'm so furious at Romney backing down and supporting "bipartisanship" screw that, I want someone tough. Obviously I have no other choice but to vote for Romney, but yeah, I totally get some of the posts I read at FR and their Romney bashing. Listening to Levin tonight and his talking about Boehner and McConnell strong-arming Tea Party people who won in 2010 and some of the tactics they've been using, they need to both be voted down from their positions.
-
Romney needs a VP pick like McCain had in Sarah Palin, but Romney needs to turn that person loose, and not keep a tight rein on them like the RNC did with Sarah.
I love Rubio of course, but can he be an attack dog? Christie could, but I think there's only 1 VP debate anyway, is that enough to gather traction?
-
I love Rubio of course, but can he be an attack dog? Christie could, but I think there's only 1 VP debate anyway, is that enough to gather traction?
The VP debate is only a small part IMO, but going out on the campaign trail with guns blazing is the way to wake people up to the failures of the Obama gang.
-
Romney makes a pretty good speech. I wonder if he could bloody Obama's nose in a debate, though. Last I heard, the WH has only agreed to three Presidential debates this election season.
Runnin' scared.
-
Romney can't back down, and he's got to stop saying "Obama is a nice guy" I personally never thought Obama was nice, he always comes across as condescending to me.
-
We need a tough and brass conservative in the presidency also. Not someone who is going to be soft and *****. Like McCain was. He was a wimp, if he would have went after Obama a little more, he would have had a better chance of winning. I am hoping that Romney goes after Obama with both barrels. He needs to if he wants to have a chance of getting elected.
I think he will go after the Magic Negro cause I think he wants to win. Romney's wife is going to be a great asset. Attacks one her are going to backfire.
-
Yes, a good VP and letting them loose will work also. I think Christy would be perfect for that - I do see Romney's wife fighting back. She seems like the type of person who doesn't take peoples shit.
I just want to see Romney go after Obama non stop while he hammers him on his record and tells him like it is. He will see his poll numbers go up, and increase his chances of getting elected if he does.
The RNC should have let Palin loose, that would have made a more spirited campaign. I think her acceptance speech scared them a little bit.
-
Yes, a good VP and letting them loose will work also.
Dick Cheney :-)
-
Dick Cheney :-)
Liberal heads would explode. :rofl:
-
Man, Dick Cheney would be a sweet pick. :rofl:
-
First, we need to get more conservatives elected in both houses. Second, get rid of that wimpy kiss ass bonehead named Boehner. Same with McConnell
Allen West as speaker and Jim Demint as Senate Majority Leader, for the win.
-
Allen West as speaker and Jim Demint as Senate Majority Leader
:cheersmate:
-
Allen West as speaker and Jim Demint as Senate Majority Leader, for the win.
I'd prefer Bachmann but West would be more then acceptable.
-
I'd prefer Bachmann but West would be more then acceptable.
West would be less susceptible to attacks. Can you imagine being able to play the race card when the left attacks him? :rotf:
-
West would be less susceptible to attacks. Can you imagine being able to play the race card when the left attacks him? :rotf:
Oh, they wouldn't hold back, they'd treat him like they did Condi.
-
Oh, they wouldn't hold back, they'd treat him like they did Condi.
But there is a big difference between then and now , I think. I think more people are paying attention to how the left treats minorities that disagree with them. That and social media and conservative blogs/websites have a much bigger presence on the web.
-
But there is a big difference between then and now , I think. I think more people are paying attention to how the left treats minorities that disagree with them. That and social media and conservative blogs/websites have a much bigger presence on the web.
Apparently you're not as attuned as you should be. They're calling him every name in the democrat play book they can. His response? Bring it, bitches, you're not gonna intimidate me.
-
Apparently you're not as attuned as you should be. They're calling him every name in the democrat play book they can. His response? Bring it, bitches, you're not gonna intimidate me.
That's the attitude Romney needs. No idea why Republicans think they always have to be above the fray, dammit, they need to get in the mud sometimes and get dirty.
-
West would be less susceptible to attacks. Can you imagine being able to play the race card when the left attacks him? :rotf:
Conservatives need to quit worrying about who is and who is not more or less susceptible to attacks. This is going to be a down and dirty campaign. The dog shit is going to fly. The left will attack anyone that gets in their way. Romney and the Repubs better be ready for it. Otherwise, they will lose in Nov.
-
Conservatives need to quit worrying about who is and who is not more or less susceptible to attacks. This is going to be a down and dirty campaign. The dog shit is going to fly. The left will attack anyone that gets in their way. Romney and the Repubs better be ready for it. Otherwise, they will lose in Nov.
I meant that West would be better able to withstand attacks and to fight back against the DemonRat attacks than Bachmann would.
-
Btw, this next election,IMO, is the fight for the republic. If I have to support a f'n RINO over a Damn Marxist, so be it. Didn't get the candidate I wanted, but I still want to play ball.
-
First, we need to get more conservatives elected in both houses. Second, get rid of that wimpy kiss ass bonehead named Boehner. Same with McConnell
They're not perfect, but I think those guys never got enough credit on holding tough against any disastrous "compromise" position with Obamacare and others. I'm not saying they'd be great leaders when the GOP holds a majority, but I think they did a great job of fighting the left and holding the Rs together.
-
They're not perfect, but I think those guys never got enough credit on holding tough against any disastrous "compromise" position with Obamacare and others. I'm not saying they'd be great leaders when the GOP holds a majority, but I think they did a great job of fighting the left and holding the Rs together.
Excellent analysis.