I don't like Romney.

[Lacarnut]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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.

 

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?

[Lacarnut]

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.

 

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. 



 

[Rebel]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

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.

[Ballygrl]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

I'd like to ask DefiantSix a question.

What is the alternative?

[DefiantSix]

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?

[DefiantSix]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

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.

[Kyle Ricky]

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.

[Lacarnut]

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?

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.

[Ballygrl]

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?

Tea Party backed Candidates are against increasing the debt, are for cuts, you need enough of them elected though to actually make a difference.

[DefiantSix]

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.

[DefiantSix]

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.

[Ballygrl]

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.

[Chris_]

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.

[Duke Nukum]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

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.

[Chris_]

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.

[EagleKeeper]

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.

[Rebel]

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.

[Rebel]

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.