Mitt Romney Fans: Can you justify this?

[elvis]

Well that's the GOP's fault then, isn't it, Elvis?

i don't care about faults. I care about getting the Ossiah out of office.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I'll be bleeding from the ass no matter which of those two get elected.

What we need is a real conservative to run.

I agree. but what if we don't get one?

Then now is the time to start letting those in power know that we are not going to settle anymore.

Let them come to understand that if they wish to continue to offer up watered down candidates whose character, ethics and ideology is based upon the winds of 'polls'; that we will not only ensure that they continue to lose power that we will actively work to remove THEM from power.

Politicians cannot be or have anything without us.

Problem is: We've developed into the mindset where it's as if WE need THEM, instead of vice versa.

 

[Darkwind]

What we need is a real conservative to run.

It is possible that by 2016 (or before) a viable third party called the conservative party will emerge!

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

 

[elvis]

What we need is a real conservative to run.

It is possible that by 2016 (or before) a viable third party called the conservative party will emerge!

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

 

[Darkwind]

I agree. but what if we don't get one?

Then now is the time to start letting those in power know that we are not going to settle anymore.

Let them come to understand that if they wish to continue to offer up watered down candidates whose character, ethics and ideology is based upon the winds of 'polls'; that we will not only ensure that they continue to lose power that we will actively work to remove THEM from power.

Politicians cannot be or have anything without us.

Problem is: We've developed into the mindset where it's as if WE need THEM, instead of vice versa.

I know. And they say that this candidate is not perfect for everyone, but he/she is much better then the oppositions candidate and we have to win first!

The truth is, you have to know who you are and what you stand for first. The winning comes from knowing that.

 

[Oscar Wao]

It is possible that by 2016 (or before) a viable third party called the conservative party will emerge!

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

I'm no expert on political statistics, but, can the GOP, the allegedly "righteous" (*chudkle*) Party, survive without the RR? In your opinion, of course.

 

[Darkwind]

It is possible that by 2016 (or before) a viable third party called the conservative party will emerge!

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

Its real simple. Let them know where your convictions and morals and ethics stem from. If you really are a man of religious convictions, then it becomes as natural as breathing that you speak from your heart of those things that drive you and are important to you. But it must be made clear that your beliefs are part of your fabric, not something that a coalition dictates to you.

 

[elvis]

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

I'm no expert on political statistics, but, can the GOP, the allegedly "righteous" (*chudkle*) Party, survive without the RR? In your opinion, of course.

I don't know. They would need most of the indies for sure.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Then now is the time to start letting those in power know that we are not going to settle anymore.

Let them come to understand that if they wish to continue to offer up watered down candidates whose character, ethics and ideology is based upon the winds of 'polls'; that we will not only ensure that they continue to lose power that we will actively work to remove THEM from power.

Politicians cannot be or have anything without us.

Problem is: We've developed into the mindset where it's as if WE need THEM, instead of vice versa.

I know. And they say that this candidate is not perfect for everyone, but he/she is much better then the oppositions candidate and we have to win first!

The truth is, you have to know who you are and what you stand for first. The winning comes from knowing that.

I have a guy: Gary Johnson.

The problem is, he might be too "different" for everyone.

But then again, and I've used this comparison a million times, so was Obama (and I don't mean "different" in the sense of skin colour).

 

[Darkwind]

They won't. I've been to their website and read their planks.

Until they take religion out of their campaign, they will forever be a party of no-ones.

Religious convictions and morals are what should drive a man or woman. Not a political plank in a platform.

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

I'm no expert on political statistics, but, can the GOP, the allegedly "righteous" (*chudkle*) Party, survive without the RR? In your opinion, of course.

They can.

In the end, a person of conservative values speak to the so-called 'Religious Right' and has those values that they share as well.

 

[Darkwind]

Problem is: We've developed into the mindset where it's as if WE need THEM, instead of vice versa.

I know. And they say that this candidate is not perfect for everyone, but he/she is much better then the oppositions candidate and we have to win first!

The truth is, you have to know who you are and what you stand for first. The winning comes from knowing that.

I have a guy: Gary Johnson.

The problem is, he might be too "different" for everyone.

But then again, and I've used this comparison a million times, so was Obama (and I don't mean "different" in the sense of skin colour).

I understand what you mean. I have often spoken with acquaintances and co-workers about how I think that the change and different approach to governing by the current President has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with the path he is leading us down. It goes against our very fabric as a nation to get on our knees and expect government to live our lives for us.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I agree with you 100 percent in principle. But don't you agree they need the religious right to win a general election? How do you keep them from staying home?

I'm no expert on political statistics, but, can the GOP, the allegedly "righteous" (*chudkle*) Party, survive without the RR? In your opinion, of course.

They can.

In the end, a person of conservative values speak to the so-called 'Religious Right' and has those values that they share as well.

Possibly, but the Head Honchos of the Religious Right won't give you so much as a look at you, unless you believe in sending gays back into the closet, taking birth control away, raiding houses and looking for porn movies, outlawing trick-or-treating, and making Pat Robertson's birthday a federal national holiday.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm no expert on political statistics, but, can the GOP, the allegedly "righteous" (*chudkle*) Party, survive without the RR? In your opinion, of course.

They can.

In the end, a person of conservative values speak to the so-called 'Religious Right' and has those values that they share as well.

Possibly, but the Head Honchos of the Religious Right won't give you so much as a look at you, unless you believe in sending gays back into the closet, taking birth control away, raiding houses and looking for porn movies, outlawing trick-or-treating, and making Pat Robertson's birthday a federal national holiday.

LOL

Ignore them and simple speak directly to their congregations. After all, how is anyone going to stop a candidate from speaking to any American?

Well, the SR-MSM can do that, but that is just another problem that needs solving.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I know. And they say that this candidate is not perfect for everyone, but he/she is much better then the oppositions candidate and we have to win first!

The truth is, you have to know who you are and what you stand for first. The winning comes from knowing that.

I have a guy: Gary Johnson.

The problem is, he might be too "different" for everyone.

But then again, and I've used this comparison a million times, so was Obama (and I don't mean "different" in the sense of skin colour).

I understand what you mean. I have often spoken with acquaintances and co-workers about how I think that the change and different approach to governing by the current President has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with the path he is leading us down. It goes against our very fabric as a nation to get on our knees and expect government to live our lives for us.

See, that's the thing.

Back in '04, Kerry promised "different than Bush," but his campaign was really more bland than anything.

But fast-forward to 4 years later, we have a guy promising RADICAL change, a "different type of politics" (his OWN words), and a different outlook on DC. Well, he's sure doing all those...but not for the better.

The GOP so far hasn't really come up with any person who can deliver, at least in words, some type of "change." Sure, it may be less spending here or there, a promise of a border fence, maybe some civil unions, so and so, but nothing that gives you the feeling that the guy or gal wants to actually CHANGE things.

 

[Darkwind]

I have a guy: Gary Johnson.

The problem is, he might be too "different" for everyone.

But then again, and I've used this comparison a million times, so was Obama (and I don't mean "different" in the sense of skin colour).

I understand what you mean. I have often spoken with acquaintances and co-workers about how I think that the change and different approach to governing by the current President has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with the path he is leading us down. It goes against our very fabric as a nation to get on our knees and expect government to live our lives for us.

See, that's the thing.

Back in '04, Kerry promised "different than Bush," but his campaign was really more bland than anything.

But fast-forward to 4 years later, we have a guy promising RADICAL change, a "different kind of politics" (his OWN words), and a different outlook on DC.

The GOP so far hasn't really come up with any person who can deliver, at least in words, some type of "change." Sure, it may be less spending here or there, a promise of a border fence, maybe some civil unions, so and so, but nothing that gives you the feeling that the guy or gal wants to actually CHANGE things.

Well, as much as I hate to do it, I think that when Hannity says of Ronald Reagan that we need to think in bold colors and not pale pastels he hits it on the head.

We need a candidate that is not afraid of being conservative and not someone who will back down from his/her convictions even when being attacked by every SR-Media outlet on the planet.

If a person does not back down, he/she will at least get the respect of most of us on the right.

At any rate, we do need to start speaking up and in a loud voice that we will not continue to settle!

But not this morning. I've got to hit the sack.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I understand what you mean. I have often spoken with acquaintances and co-workers about how I think that the change and different approach to governing by the current President has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with the path he is leading us down. It goes against our very fabric as a nation to get on our knees and expect government to live our lives for us.

See, that's the thing.

Back in '04, Kerry promised "different than Bush," but his campaign was really more bland than anything.

But fast-forward to 4 years later, we have a guy promising RADICAL change, a "different kind of politics" (his OWN words), and a different outlook on DC.

The GOP so far hasn't really come up with any person who can deliver, at least in words, some type of "change." Sure, it may be less spending here or there, a promise of a border fence, maybe some civil unions, so and so, but nothing that gives you the feeling that the guy or gal wants to actually CHANGE things.

Well, as much as I hate to do it, I think that when Hannity says of Ronald Reagan that we need to think in bold colors and not pale pastels he hits it on the head.

We need a candidate that is not afraid of being conservative and not someone who will back down from his/her convictions even when being attacked by every SR-Media outlet on the planet.

If a person does not back down, he/she will at least get the respect of most of us on the right.

At any rate, we do need to start speaking up and in a loud voice that we will not continue to settle!

But not this morning. I've got to hit the sack.

Thanks for the conversation.

Heh, I agree, though I think Reagan is too overused sometimes...its as if he's a 4th member of the Trinity. Though I do like Reagan in some respects.

And I gotta get some sleep too...thanks for the convo as well!

 

[Soaring]

Why would I settle for Obama lite?

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

then you'll get the greater of two evils.

I'll be bleeding from the ass no matter which of those two get elected.

What we need is a real conservative to run.

Yep, but a real conservative won't win because the American citizens are too stupid to vote for a conservative because they are spoiled and want to continue with their free handouts from the government.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Interesting discussion you guys are having. Entertaining to read.

I'm still curious as to where the romney fans are and how they are going to reconcile with my OP

Mitt Romney brough my state's (MA) health plan into being right before he left office.

This plan requires all MA citizens to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty, also known as a fine, every year for not having coverage.

The plan also provides health care to low income people.

His plan has also gotten my state over 2billion dollars in debt (you could argue that is devaul patrick's fault since he took over right after romney instituted the plan).


Just curious as I know many conservatives like romney and are against universal health coverage.

SO how do you reconcile these differences?

Romney supporters you really need to nail this one down if you want him to run in 2012 without getting slammed by his opponents on the right.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I know I know its Glenn Beck....I KNOW alright!!!! But still......it is a good show of my states health plan, the one that the congress and obama administration wants to make go for everyone. Check it out

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhrvDPKtrG4]YouTube - Glenn Beck Daily Clips 07-20-09 Seg 2-Massachusetts Health Care Most Expensive, Getting Worse[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

Mitt Romney brough my state's (MA) health plan into being right before he left office.

This plan requires all MA citizens to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty, also known as a fine, every year for not having coverage.

The plan also provides health care to low income people.

His plan has also gotten my state over 2billion dollars in debt (you could argue that is devaul patrick's fault since he took over right after romney instituted the plan).


Just curious as I know many conservatives like romney and are against universal health coverage.

SO how do you reconcile these differences?

Romney supporters you really need to nail this one down if you want him to run in 2012 without getting slammed by his opponents on the right.

Quite honestly, this is probably the one major difference Ive had with him. I didnt see that as a reason to ignore all the other things He has done.

First, I dont have a problem if states experiment with legislation. They have much more authority than the Federal government and in theory are more accountable to the people.

Second, he tried to involve some free market solutions into the problem. Im not sure he succeeded with it. In fact, I am willing to bet any effects those principles had were counteracted by the legislature there. But he is at least trying.

Third, I know he is an intelligent man who probably sees clearly what was good and bad about the program. The more time it has to be analyzed. the more informed he will be in the future.