Obama Issues Statement Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

[Janice]

Sorry formerlurker, I may have you all wrong. But these days my automatic gut reaction to those on our side who vigorously defend moderate repukes is revulsion. We have today a party and its leader who want to absolutely destroy this country as we once knew it. They have been going at it now for a very long time. Brick by brick. And now theyve brought a bull dozer. Our constitution like our freedoms are an affront to them. They really are 'the enemy within the gates' in my view.

Now on the other hand we have another party that we used to regularly send to Washington to be our advocates and to stand as a contrast to the statists and the socialists. The differences between the two didnt use to be so stark as they pretty much seemed to heading in the same direction. The only difference was by degree. But that has changed. The dems are running headlong right off the cliff and into the sea and taking us and our country with them by design imho.

We recently took back about 80 seats in Congress. We also took back many of the State Houses too. And the lord willing we will take back the Senate and the Presidency come the next election. All of this predicated on the promise that we would stop and reverse this train wreck. This out of control spending. Simple right? Well ... maybe not. Despite the fact that we overwhelmingly took back the House (which all spending originates from) and will probably take back the Senate next election (lord willing) we still have a GOP leadership that has been there for decades.

Now we didnt elect this leadership ... that is to say they came to this position because 'its their turn'. Thats how seniority works there. Which is all good and fine ... most of the time. This is not one of those times. The enemy (democrat leadership and much of the party) has an agenda to bring this economy to its knees and to knock this country down a notch or two. They hold most of the reins of power and they hold this country in contempt. Now as if that wasnt enough we have an entrenched GOP leadership that apparently feels they are more like royalty than elected representatives. Now normally they should present a stark contrast between them and the opposing party. Why? Because we are right.. and they are wrong. Not only that but they (the democrat party) are also morally bankrupt. So we have moral, ethical and constitutional issues at play here.

What it boils down to is they (the democrat party) want to rescind our inalienable rights and enslave us. Just shred the constitution and do whatever the hell they want to with us. Are you with me so far? Well here is where it gets a bit murky. We have sent a majority to Congress that wants to make a stand against this tyranny. But their hands are tied for the most part as they are all freshmen. They dont have any 'seniority'. So they more or less have to toe the line with whatever the 'leadership' wants. Unfortunately the current GOP leadership have no spine. None at all, except for one thing. They have a LOT of spine to tell me whatever they think I want to hear, then turn right around and do whatever they please. Come election time they will out and outright lie to me to get my vote. Then after theyve secured their position and its time to legislate or vote on legislation they turn right around and give me the middle finger. Just like that. In essence they say Janice we appreciate your vote. Without you and millions like you we would not be here. Now ... go **** yourself.

Rather than go to Washington to do what we sent them to do, they get behind closed doors with the enemy (liberal democrats) and pat each other on the backs at what a bunch of idiots we are. In fact they both (both party leaderships) seem to view us (the voters) especially conservative voters as a bunch of rubes. And sometimes I must confess they appear to be right. How in the world can we keep sending these 'pretend' conservatives to Washington and expect a different result? These are career politicians who have been there for so long, they wouldnt know the truth if it slapped them in the face. And they know even less about core values and principles, unless it has something to do with keeping their power. These people will say anything to retain that power. And they will tell me whatever they think I want to hear to keep it that way. Then when its time to make the changes I voted for them to do, they just flip me off.

Well, I gotta tell you I am beyond sick and tired of this charade. These politicians are not royalty. They are not 'entitled', contrary to what they seem to believe. They ARE SUPPOSED to be there temporary - not forever. They are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US, not the status quo. But apparently they (the current GOP leadership) never seem to get it, because they are bullet proof, or seem to think they are bullet proof. And I hold voters accountable for that presumption too. But I for one am NOT going to take it anymore. And I dont give a shit what anybody else says I have had enough. And Im not interested in losing my country because of a few arrogant, self important prima donnas.

They (the GOP) apparently believe they can  'compromise' with the enemy (the extreme far left currently in power). Knowing that these ingrates have utter contempt for our Countrys founding documents and our liberties, what part of our freedoms are they willing to compromise on? The left (eventually) wants to completely do away with all or most of them. What part are we going to agree to with them? Lets say they want to do away with 100% of our freedom of speech (which of course they are currently working on), what part of that freedom are we willing to give on? 50%? 35%? What? How much are we supposed to compromise our rights and liberties away with these morons? Remember ... once they are gone.. thats it. Kiss them good bye. They are gone forever.

So .. back to the support of 'moderates'. If I've got you all wrong, I do apologize. But, I gotta tell ya... when I hear these spineless middle of the roaders defended I have a natural gag reflex. Its almost like ingesting poison. I just cant take it anymore. And Im hoping that in these next 2 elections that I am not alone.

[Lacarnut]

Nothing, as I expected.  

Whining is all you accomplish.   It's not election season until the "real conservatives" dust off their keyboards and whine with proficiency.

If nothing, you are most consistent in that regard.  

Here are some facts about your boy. In 1994, Romney stated that he unshakably supported abortion and stem cell research while running against dead Ted for the Senate. When he became Governor 8 years later, he was for civil unions for queers. He has changed his tune on those issues and states that he is pro family in his personal life and in his political life.

It is hard for me to image a Christian of long standing like Romney ever having those views. Moral values are important to most conservatives. Consequently, I believe he is a hypocrite and was never in favor of those issues but only said so to get elected. This is exactly the kind of politician I despise. I can understand a politician that flip flops on issues like the war, spending, etc but to flip flop on morality is a bitter pill for the sake of expediency and to get elected in a very liberal state is hard for a conservatives like my self to swallow. Therefore, I will not vote for him under any circumstances. Romney apologist like you are the ones doing the whining with your bs about if you don't vote for a snake in the grass you are casting a vote for Obama..  

[formerlurker]

Sorry formerlurker, I may have you all wrong. But these days my automatic gut reaction to those on our side who vigorously defend moderate repukes is revulsion. We have today a party and its leader who want to absolutely destroy this country as we once knew it. They have been going at it now for a very long time. Brick by brick. And now theyve brought a bull dozer. Our constitution like our freedoms are an affront to them. They really are 'the enemy within the gates' in my view.

Now on the other hand we have another party that we used to regularly send to Washington to be our advocates and to stand as a contrast to the statists and the socialists. The differences between the two didnt use to be so stark as they pretty much seemed to heading in the same direction. The only difference was by degree. But that has changed. The dems are running headlong right off the cliff and into the sea and taking us and our country with them by design imho.

We recently took back about 80 seats in Congress. We also took back many of the State Houses too. And the lord willing we will take back the Senate and the Presidency come the next election. All of this predicated on the promise that we would stop and reverse this train wreck. This out of control spending. Simple right? Well ... maybe not. Despite the fact that we overwhelmingly took back the House (which all spending originates from) and will probably take back the Senate next election (lord willing) we still have a GOP leadership that has been there for decades.

Now we didnt elect this leadership ... that is to say they came to this position because 'its their turn'. Thats how seniority works there. Which is all good and fine ... most of the time. This is not one of those times. The enemy (democrat leadership and much of the party) has an agenda to bring this economy to its knees and to knock this country down a notch or two. They hold most of the reins of power and they hold this country in contempt. Now as if that wasnt enough we have an entrenched GOP leadership that apparently feels they are more like royalty than elected representatives. Now normally they should present a stark contrast between them and the opposing party. Why? Because we are right.. and they are wrong. Not only that but they (the democrat party) are also morally bankrupt. So we have moral, ethical and constitutional issues at play here.

What it boils down to is they (the democrat party) want to rescind our inalienable rights and enslave us. Just shred the constitution and do whatever the hell they want to with us. Are you with me so far? Well here is where it gets a bit murky. We have sent a majority to Congress that wants to make a stand against this tyranny. But their hands are tied for the most part as they are all freshmen. They dont have any 'seniority'. So they more or less have to toe the line with whatever the 'leadership' wants. Unfortunately the current GOP leadership have no spine. None at all, except for one thing. They have a LOT of spine to tell me whatever they think I want to hear, then turn right around and do whatever they please. Come election time they will out and outright lie to me to get my vote. Then after theyve secured their position and its time to legislate or vote on legislation they turn right around and give me the middle finger. Just like that. In essence they say Janice we appreciate your vote. Without you and millions like you we would not be here. Now ... go **** yourself.

Rather than go to Washington to do what we sent them to do, they get behind closed doors with the enemy (liberal democrats) and pat each other on the backs at what a bunch of idiots we are. In fact they both (both party leaderships) seem to view us (the voters) especially conservative voters as a bunch of rubes. And sometimes I must confess they appear to be right. How in the world can we keep sending these 'pretend' conservatives to Washington and expect a different result? These are career politicians who have been there for so long, they wouldnt know the truth if it slapped them in the face. And they know even less about core values and principles, unless it has something to do with keeping their power. These people will say anything to retain that power. And they will tell me whatever they think I want to hear to keep it that way. Then when its time to make the changes I voted for them to do, they just flip me off.

Well, I gotta tell you I am beyond sick and tired of this charade. These politicians are not royalty. They are not 'entitled', contrary to what they seem to believe. They ARE SUPPOSED to be there temporary - not forever. They are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US, not the status quo. But apparently they (the current GOP leadership) never seem to get it, because they are bullet proof, or seem to think they are bullet proof. And I hold voters accountable for that presumption too. But I for one am NOT going to take it anymore. And I dont give a shit what anybody else says I have had enough. And Im not interested in losing my country because of a few arrogant, self important prima donnas.

They (the GOP) apparently believe they can  'compromise' with the enemy (the extreme far left currently in power). Knowing that these ingrates have utter contempt for our Countrys founding documents and our liberties, what part of our freedoms are they willing to compromise on? The left (eventually) wants to completely do away with all or most of them. What part are we going to agree to with them? Lets say they want to do away with 100% of our freedom of speech (which of course they are currently working on), what part of that freedom are we willing to give on? 50%? 35%? What? How much are we supposed to compromise our rights and liberties away with these morons? Remember ... once they are gone.. thats it. Kiss them good bye. They are gone forever.

So .. back to the support of 'moderates'. If I've got you all wrong, I do apologize. But, I gotta tell ya... when I hear these spineless middle of the roaders defended I have a natural gag reflex. Its almost like ingesting poison. I just cant take it anymore. And Im hoping that in these next 2 elections that I am not alone.

Janice, first of all this was well said -- not a whine, a vent, which I completely understand, appreciate and for the most part agree with much of what you are saying.

That said, politics has not changed since the day our country was founded.   This is the process.  You can't disparage a representative who you send to Washington with the best of intentions and shared ideology for realizing when he/she gets there that bulldozing your way onto the scene will get you a lot of press, but absolutely nothing else.   

That is not how change will be effected in this country.   

We can demand all we want, but like it or not, we have to follow the process to obtain our goals.   When we have the house, senate and white house THEN  we can demand.   Until then, it is all really just extremely unproductive noise.   

IMO the GOP candidate is someone who MUST appeal to the middle, and whoever that is will accomplish that if they focus hard on the economy.   Make it about anything else, and that just plays into the left's hands.   Why do it then? 

That person can certainly be a very hard right candidate -- perception right now is the name of the game to win the white house.   We'll see what happens.

 

[formerlurker]

Here are some facts about your boy. In 1994, Romney stated that he unshakably supported abortion and stem cell research while running against dead Ted for the Senate. When he became Governor 8 years later, he was for civil unions for queers. He has changed his tune on those issues and states that he is pro family in his personal life and in his political life.

It is hard for me to image a Christian of long standing like Romney ever having those views. Moral values are important to most conservatives. Consequently, I believe he is a hypocrite and was never in favor of those issues but only said so to get elected. This is exactly the kind of politician I despise. I can understand a politician that flip flops on issues like the war, spending, etc but to flip flop on morality is a bitter pill for the sake of expediency and to get elected in a very liberal state is hard for a conservatives like my self to swallow. Therefore, I will not vote for him under any circumstances. Romney apologist like you are the ones doing the whining with your bs about if you don't vote for a snake in the grass you are casting a vote for Obama..  

 

In his debate with Kennedy -- he stated his personal beliefs should not conflict with his role in government.   He stated that at that time, his opinion was formulated on a family member or friend who died having an illegal abortion.    He changed his position.    I can see the conflict when you are running in liberal MA, but he did it and explained why.   

Stem cell?   another conflict I can see because his wife has MS.   However, he explained his change of position on that also.  He also vetoed a bunch of bills on stem cell research when he was governor.     

The civil union issue?   and?   He has always been against gay marriage.   He attempted to get the issue placed on the MA ballot but was blocked by the liberal legislature.   I think the GOP pretty much as a whole has no problem with civil unions, which clearly is a state issue.

The rest of your nonsense is just that -- nonsense.   

   

[formerlurker]

Here are some facts about your boy. In 1994, Romney stated that he unshakably supported abortion and stem cell research while running against dead Ted for the Senate. When he became Governor 8 years later, he was for civil unions for queers. He has changed his tune on those issues and states that he is pro family in his personal life and in his political life.

It is hard for me to image a Christian of long standing like Romney ever having those views. Moral values are important to most conservatives. Consequently, I believe he is a hypocrite and was never in favor of those issues but only said so to get elected. This is exactly the kind of politician I despise. I can understand a politician that flip flops on issues like the war, spending, etc but to flip flop on morality is a bitter pill for the sake of expediency and to get elected in a very liberal state is hard for a conservatives like my self to swallow. Therefore, I will not vote for him under any circumstances. Romney apologist like you are the ones doing the whining with your bs about if you don't vote for a snake in the grass you are casting a vote for Obama..  

Oh and still waiting for your response:

Quote from: formerlurker on April 24, 2011, 09:15:47 am

Where did I state that we needed a moderate candidate? take your time oh emotional one, as I never said it. 

You want to debate Romney?   then post something other than mass resistance, and we will talk about it.   I don't have any issue with those who don't support him, however just base it on facts, which for you is extremely difficult I as suspect you are incapable of forming any sort of independent thought.

[Lacarnut]

In his debate with Kennedy -- he stated his personal beliefs should not conflict with his role in government.   He stated that at that time, his opinion was formulated on a family member or friend who died having an illegal abortion.    He changed his position.    I can see the conflict when you are running in liberal MA, but he did it and explained why.   

Stem cell?   another conflict I can see because his wife has MS.   However, he explained his change of position on that also.  He also vetoed a bunch of bills on stem cell research when he was governor.     

The civil union issue?   and?   He has always been against gay marriage.   He attempted to get the issue placed on the MA ballot but was blocked by the liberal legislature.   I think the GOP pretty much as a whole has no problem with civil unions, which clearly is a state issue.

The rest of your nonsense is just that -- nonsense.   

There is no nonsense attached to the fact that passage of abortion and stem cell legislation amounts to government intervention and government funding. Even a dummy can see that. BTW, there are private companies that do stem cell research. See, I have a problem with government meddling and pissing our taxes away.

I did not say anything about gay marriage. I said he was for civil unions.

His explanations are a pack of lies in my opinion.     

[DefiantSix]

'Lurker, are you even remotely familiar with how the '10 elections played out for anybody not condemned to live in a perpetual liberal wasteland?

I give you as just one example, my own state of Colorado.  We had Comrade Hickenlooper being run on the Dhimmi'Rat ticket, mostly because he'd been mayor of Denver since rocks were new and it was "his turn".  On the other side of the ballot was Tom Tancredo, former Republican congressman, former '08 Presidential candidate, and conservative just about as honest - relatively speaking - as a politician with more than 30 days in the position could be expected these days.

His downside?  Being fed up with the politics as usual of the Republican Party, he ran under the American Constitution Party, and the Powers That Be within the Republican Party hierarchy couldn't stand for that.  They imported a disgraced former Kansas LEO, Dan Maes, to run for Colorado Governor on the GOP ticket.  They didn't do a damned thing to advocate for him, didn't do anything at all to hide his utterly disreputable nature as a corrupt, over-bearing public official.  He was there for one reason, and one reason only: to ensure that Tancredo didn't win.  And he served the GOP well:  he drew off 10% of the vote in November.  10% that the Republican Party_{Piss Be Upon Them} counted on to blindly vote the (R) ticket, regardless of who's name was on the line.  

10% that DELIBERATELY handed the State of Colorado over to the Dhimmi'Rats for another 4 years just so a "disaffected former Republican" wouldn't be the first crack in the dike of the Republican Party's stranglehold on traditional, conservative voters.

This, Sir, is why your, "If you don't vote for the (R), you're handing your vote to Obama" rings hollow with me anymore.  After you've finished choking down on this ugly side of the Rethuglican party, we can talk about Skuzzyfava.

[Lacarnut]

Oh and still waiting for your response:

Quote from: formerlurker on April 24, 2011, 09:15:47 am

Most of the people on this board do not consider Romney a conservative. He is a liberal who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes like Obama did. His former views on abortion, stem cell funding, etc are not moderate either. His flip flopping over so many issues tells me that he is not to be trusted. Too many politicians say one thing and do another once in office. I have a very low opinion of politicians. In other words, I would believe/trust a used car salesman over a politician.

[formerlurker]

There is no nonsense attached to the fact that passage of abortion and stem cell legislation amounts to government intervention and government funding. Even a dummy can see that. BTW, there are private companies that do stem cell research. See, I have a problem with government meddling and pissing our taxes away.

I did not say anything about gay marriage. I said he was for civil unions.

His explanations are a pack of lies in my opinion.     

Most GOP legislative members have no problem with civil unions.   

I find it quite comical that this is your issue with Romney, and this is what makes Obama more desirable to you.    What fun.

[formerlurker]

Most of the people on this board do not consider Romney a conservative. He is a liberal who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes like Obama did. His former views on abortion, stem cell funding, etc are not moderate either. His flip flopping over so many issues tells me that he is not to be trusted. Too many politicians say one thing and do another once in office. I have a very low opinion of politicians. In other words, I would believe/trust a used car salesman over a politician.

Anytime you want to answer my question....

[formerlurker]

'Lurker, are you even remotely familiar with how the '10 elections played out for anybody not condemned to live in a perpetual liberal wasteland?

I give you as just one example, my own state of Colorado.  We had Comrade Hickenlooper being run on the Dhimmi'Rat ticket, mostly because he'd been mayor of Denver since rocks were new and it was "his turn".  On the other side of the ballot was Tom Tancredo, former Republican congressman, former '08 Presidential candidate, and conservative just about as honest - relatively speaking - as a politician with more than 30 days in the position could be expected these days.

His downside?  Being fed up with the politics as usual of the Republican Party, he ran under the American Constitution Party, and the Powers That Be within the Republican Party hierarchy couldn't stand for that.  They imported a disgraced former Kansas LEO, Dan Maes, to run for Colorado Governor on the GOP ticket.  They didn't do a damned thing to advocate for him, didn't do anything at all to hide his utterly disreputable nature as a corrupt, over-bearing public official.  He was there for one reason, and one reason only: to ensure that Tancredo didn't win.  And he served the GOP well:  he drew off 10% of the vote in November.  10% that the Republican Party_{Piss Be Upon Them} counted on to blindly vote the (R) ticket, regardless of who's name was on the line.  

10% that DELIBERATELY handed the State of Colorado over to the Dhimmi'Rats for another 4 years just so a "disaffected former Republican" wouldn't be the first crack in the dike of the Republican Party's stranglehold on traditional, conservative voters.

This, Sir, is why your, "If you don't vote for the (R), you're handing your vote to Obama" rings hollow with me anymore.  After you've finished choking down on this ugly side of the Rethuglican party, we can talk about Skuzzyfava.

Oh I know how politics is played, you seem to have problems understand how they work in Washington.

Tancredo shunned the Republican party, yet expected (as you do) that they be oh so totally fine with that, and not lobby a candidate or candidate(s) to run?

Oh I see.   

Yeah, I think a 6th grader could have told you how that would have played out.   

"Together our groups strongly urge you to reconsider, withdraw your ultimatum, stay in the Republican Party, let the process play out for the governor's race," said the letter signed by 21 active Tea Party and 9.12 groups. "In other words, to trust and respect the newly awakened, energized and informed voters of Colorado."

The letter said that if Tancredo carries out his promise, it means an "impending disaster, assuring victory for Mayor Hickenlooper and the liberal agenda in Colorado for at least four more years."

The letter also cited an unscientific survey of Tea Party members that suggested 66 percent would not vote for Tancredo in the governor's race.
Don Rodgers, leader of the Pikes Peak Patriots in Colorado Springs, said Tancredo has contradicted himself.

"He said a third party or a minor party would be suicidal. He encouraged us to get involved, and we had thousands of people who did just that," Rodgers said.

"They became delegates. They did it through the process. Because Tom didn't like who they had chosen, he gave us this ultimatum."

Read more: Colorado Tea Partyers say Tancredo betrayed them - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15601816#ixzz1Kaym152c
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[DefiantSix]

Sir, if the GOP had been "in it to win it" last year, I wouldn't have cared a whit how the race turned out.  They weren't:  they fronted an "ethically challenged" candidate that NOBODY in the state could get behind solely for the purpose of sabotaging the legitimate candidacy of a conservative.  In reality, they did EXACTLY what you run off at the mouth and accuse conservatives who cannot stomach voting for another limp-dick Dhimmi'Rat in (R) clothing of doing: throwing the race to the Dhimmi'Rat.

So long as the Republican Leadership is willing to throw a race like that, my Rat's-Ass-o-Meter just doesn't even twitch whenever you RINOs whine and moan about having Obama in office because conservatives couldn't see a difference between throwing a vote away to the big-government socialist (dem-lite) asshole, and throwing a vote to the big-government Marxist (real^® Dem) asshole he was "running" against.

[Lacarnut]

Anytime you want to answer my question....

I am not interested in defining what is a moderate but I can tell you who is one. Majority leader Boehner is a moderate (RINO). He told ABC World News today that Congress should take a look at repealing oil company subsidies. Then he back pedaled and said he did endorse the idea. This is the type of mushy leadership, we do not need. He puts on the table axing tax breaks for big oil without getting any reciprocal agreement from Democrats on what sacred cow that they are willing to give up. This is idiotic. He went on to say that oil companies should be paying their fair share. This will put a chilling effect on companies that may drill because of higher costs. How does he know that they are not paying their fair share. Oil companies pay more to the treasury than any other industry. How ****ing stupid than this moderate be. With a fool like him as leader of the House of R., we are in deep shit.  

One of the tax breaks oil companies and ALL manufacturers receive is for depreciation of plants and equipment. Why should an entity like an oil company be discriminated against. Another exemption that they receive is a depletion allowance. If the government takes away incentives to drill in this country, they might do two thing both are not beneficial to our energy policy which is increase price or only drill in the best fields where success is higher. Those areas where the oil is harder to get or the volume is lower will not be drilled on. We are doomed with moderate politicians who would rather compromise than get down in the trenches and fight. Your idea of moderate ideology sucks and I want no part of it.    

[formerlurker]

Sir, if the GOP had been "in it to win it" last year, I wouldn't have cared a whit how the race turned out.  They weren't:  they fronted an "ethically challenged" candidate that NOBODY in the state could get behind solely for the purpose of sabotaging the legitimate candidacy of a conservative.  In reality, they did EXACTLY what you run off at the mouth and accuse conservatives who cannot stomach voting for another limp-dick Dhimmi'Rat in (R) clothing of doing: throwing the race to the Dhimmi'Rat.

So long as the Republican Leadership is willing to throw a race like that, my Rat's-Ass-o-Meter just doesn't even twitch whenever you RINOs whine and moan about having Obama in office because conservatives couldn't see a difference between throwing a vote away to the big-government socialist (dem-lite) asshole, and throwing a vote to the big-government Marxist (real^® Dem) asshole he was "running" against.

Excuse me, Tancredo didn't run as a Republican (for purely temper tantrum reasons).  Looks like Tancredo is the one who threw the race, did he not?

[formerlurker]

I am not interested in defining what is a moderate but I can tell you who is one. .....

That's nice.   Whenever you want to answer my question.   Let me bold and enlarge it for you to give you a hand as you seem to be lost in your own thoughts/mind:

Where did I state that we needed a moderate candidate?

[Lacarnut]

That's nice.   Whenever you want to answer my question.   Let me bold and enlarge it for you to give you a hand as you seem to be lost in your own thoughts/mind:

YOU SEEM TO BE STUCK ON STUPID. YOUR BOY ROMNEY IS A FLIP FLOPPING LIBERAL POSING AS A MODERATE CONSERVATIVE.

[formerlurker]

YOU SEEM TO BE STUCK ON STUPID. YOUR BOY ROMNEY IS A FLIP FLOPPING LIBERAL POSING AS A MODERATE CONSERVATIVE.

Where did I advocate for Romney to get the nomination halfwit? 

[Lacarnut]

Where did I advocate for Romney to get the nomination halfwit? 

You seem to be stuck on stupid. Dumbass. No more RINO's.

[formerlurker]

You seem to be stuck on stupid. Dumbass. No more RINO's.

This is rather comical now. 

[Lacarnut]

This is rather comical now. 

Yep, you are a joke with your moderate bs and everyone is laughing at you.

[formerlurker]

Yep, you are a joke with your moderate bs and everyone is laughing at you.

The DU misfits ain't got nada nothing on you do they?   You are a one note wonder.   





Next.

[Lacarnut]

The DU misfits ain't got nada nothing on you do they?   You are a one note wonder.   
Next.

I see a number of people support my position that we need more strong conservatives. Not weak kneed lying Yankee Republicans politicians like Romney that you support. You are a one trick retarded pony with your compromising agenda.

I hope the Donald runs (not wins) cause he will tear Romney a new asshole. Not that would be funny. Maybe the remaining male candidates will get a backbone.

[formerlurker]

I see a number of people support my position that we need more strong conservatives. Not weak kneed lying Yankee Republicans politicians like Romney that you support. You are a one trick retarded pony with your compromising agenda.

I hope the Donald runs (not wins) cause he will tear Romney a new asshole. Not that would be funny. Maybe the remaining male candidates will get a backbone.

"Retarded" pony? 

Using references reserved for significantly cognitively impaired individuals as a slur just demonstrates the exceptionally immature, vile, thick-headed, pathetic excuse for a man that you are.   

For the last time, where did I advocate for Romney, or any moderate, to secure the nomination?   Let me answer for you as it appears reading comprehension is a serious problem for you -- I never did.   

[Lacarnut]

"Retarded" pony? 

Using references reserved for significantly cognitively impaired individuals as a slur just demonstrates the exceptionally immature, vile, thick-headed, pathetic excuse for a man that you are.   

For the last time, where did I advocate for Romney, or any moderate, to secure the nomination?   Let me answer for you as it appears reading comprehension is a serious problem for you -- I never did.

Retarded pony refers to you since you have your head so far up your ass with your moderation ideology. Don't get your bowels in an uproar; your brains are liable to explode. Everyone is laughing at your dumb ass.

[delilahmused]

Read her entire article, and you are seriously mistaken if you think you can take the White House without the moderates.  You don't have the votes.

Read through some of her past columns...she's spent time drooling over 0bama. Everyone thinks a Republican has to be a middle of the road milquetoast to win the squishy middle. Nobody ever says the same thing to the Democrats. That's just freaking nuts, especially since we know this is a center-right country. Every single time we have a "middle of the road" conservative we lose. Happened last time...conventional wisdom said we had to chose a moderate...a McCain or a Romney. Yeah, that went well.

People are looking for strong leadership and people willing to speak out about the things 0bama is doing to this country. One thing about the squishy middle, they'll always respond to strength. And honesty. Candidate Reagan NEVER lied about who he was. There were no surprises when he got into office. That's why Reagan won in 2 landslides. That's why every time Palin takes 0bama to the woodshed on facebook or in a speech it resonates. No one, not even the other possible candidates have come out as forcefully and honestly as the have. I'm sick to death of candidates who say one thing to appeal to their base and then something else during the general elections season hoping to appeal to that precious middle (that doesn't even exist when someone strong runs). And we've GOT to have someone who can reverse what the left has done. I don't want to vote for someone I have to settle for because others have tried to convince us that a strong person with conservative principles can't win. That's bullshit.

Reagan should be the example of conservative candidates. It works.

Cindie