Mitt Wins So What Does That Say? What's The Message?

[The Rabbi]

The reason I support Libertarianism is simple.... person and economic freedom.

Milquetoast.
Support Anarchism and really support freedom!

OK i'll bite Rabbi. You think I am milquetoast because I am in favor of liberty and freedom?

I do not support anarchy because it does not support freedom....get it.....

OK so you support coercive laws of the state. Got it.

 

[Contumacious]

No libertarians are going to get the profits of hard working citizens, C. Why don't you really tell folks here why you support libertarianism? Tell us the real reason,

The reason I support Libertarianism is simple.... person and economic freedom.

That is no longer fashionable.

The zombified populace prefers the status quo . Government supremacy - they like to let government decide what liberties , if any, we should enjoy.

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

.

 

[JoeB131]

This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

The message is that the GOP still has the awful habit of nominating the "next in line". Something they've really done since 1960. They nominate either the sitting VP, or the guy who ran once before or the son of someone who ran before.

The thing is, Conservatives (if that really means anything anymore) want to beat Obama, and they let the MSM convince them Romney was the only one who had a chance. And after Romney loses, these same folks will say "Well, Romney wasn't a real conservative, that's why he lost."

The reality, Romney got the nomination because everyone else had serious problems. Cain was a clown. Bachmann was nuts. Perry was stupid. Gingrich had a ton of baggage. The only guy who might come out of this with a future is Santorum. But more likely, in 2016, Jeb Bush will run and the GOP will get behind him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No libertarians are going to get the profits of hard working citizens, C. Why don't you really tell folks here why you support libertarianism? Tell us the real reason,

The reason I support Libertarianism is simple.... person and economic freedom.

Milquetoast.
Support Anarchism and really support freedom!

The freedom to oppress others!

 

[BDBoop]

This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

The message is that the GOP still has the awful habit of nominating the "next in line". Something they've really done since 1960. They nominate either the sitting VP, or the guy who ran once before or the son of someone who ran before.

The thing is, Conservatives (if that really means anything anymore) want to beat Obama, and they let the MSM convince them Romney was the only one who had a chance. And after Romney loses, these same folks will say "Well, Romney wasn't a real conservative, that's why he lost."

The reality, Romney got the nomination because everyone else had serious problems. Cain was a clown. Bachmann was nuts. Perry was stupid. Gingrich had a ton of baggage. The only guy who might come out of this with a future is Santorum. But more likely, in 2016, Jeb Bush will run and the GOP will get behind him.

Not Rubio, Christie, Huntsman?

I'm thinking/hoping/praying once they realize that running a neocon will get them nowhere, logic will prevail.

 

[JoeB131]

This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

The message is that the GOP still has the awful habit of nominating the "next in line". Something they've really done since 1960. They nominate either the sitting VP, or the guy who ran once before or the son of someone who ran before.

The thing is, Conservatives (if that really means anything anymore) want to beat Obama, and they let the MSM convince them Romney was the only one who had a chance. And after Romney loses, these same folks will say "Well, Romney wasn't a real conservative, that's why he lost."

The reality, Romney got the nomination because everyone else had serious problems. Cain was a clown. Bachmann was nuts. Perry was stupid. Gingrich had a ton of baggage. The only guy who might come out of this with a future is Santorum. But more likely, in 2016, Jeb Bush will run and the GOP will get behind him.

Not Rubio, Christie, Huntsman?

I'm thinking/hoping/praying once they realize that running a neocon will get them nowhere, logic will prevail.

I think if they run Jeb, it will be a message the grownups are back in charge, and they can trust the GOP again.

 

[The Rabbi]

The message is that the GOP still has the awful habit of nominating the "next in line". Something they've really done since 1960. They nominate either the sitting VP, or the guy who ran once before or the son of someone who ran before.

The thing is, Conservatives (if that really means anything anymore) want to beat Obama, and they let the MSM convince them Romney was the only one who had a chance. And after Romney loses, these same folks will say "Well, Romney wasn't a real conservative, that's why he lost."

The reality, Romney got the nomination because everyone else had serious problems. Cain was a clown. Bachmann was nuts. Perry was stupid. Gingrich had a ton of baggage. The only guy who might come out of this with a future is Santorum. But more likely, in 2016, Jeb Bush will run and the GOP will get behind him.

Not Rubio, Christie, Huntsman?

I'm thinking/hoping/praying once they realize that running a neocon will get them nowhere, logic will prevail.

I think if they run Jeb, it will be a message the grownups are back in charge, and they can trust the GOP again.

Why do the leftist scumbags now all scream that Jeb ought to have run? Before all this they were all bemoaning "another BUsh, just what we need".

Romney is a grown up, s0n. And he's gonna teach Owebama a lesson in how to govern like a president.

 

[BDBoop]

Not Rubio, Christie, Huntsman?

I'm thinking/hoping/praying once they realize that running a neocon will get them nowhere, logic will prevail.

I think if they run Jeb, it will be a message the grownups are back in charge, and they can trust the GOP again.

Why do the leftist scumbags now all scream that Jeb ought to have run? Before all this they were all bemoaning "another BUsh, just what we need".

Romney is a grown up, s0n. And he's gonna teach Owebama a lesson in how to govern like a president.

"Son?" You sound like Foghorn Leghorn.

 

[JoeB131]

Not Rubio, Christie, Huntsman?

I'm thinking/hoping/praying once they realize that running a neocon will get them nowhere, logic will prevail.

I think if they run Jeb, it will be a message the grownups are back in charge, and they can trust the GOP again.

Why do the leftist scumbags now all scream that Jeb ought to have run? Before all this they were all bemoaning "another BUsh, just what we need".

Romney is a grown up, s0n. And he's gonna teach Owebama a lesson in how to govern like a president.

Romney is a weirdo in magic underpants...

The fact is, he was a crappy candidate 4 years ago when he finished THIRD.

He hasn't gotten any better and he'll lose bigger than McCain did.

And you will be here bemoaning the fact he wasn't "conservative" enough. Just like you were whining that when you supported Perry last year.

I've said it was a bad idea all along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi and JoeB both sound like Foghorn Leghorn.

 

[JoeB131]

Incidently, I like Jeb Bush. I realize he couldn't run this time because it was too close to his brother.

But Jeb would be an awesome candidate because he actually did a good enough job TO get re-elected, he was always true to who he is, and he can bridge the gap with hispanics, because he's married to one.

 

[BDBoop]

The Rabbi and JoeB both sound like Foghorn Leghorn.

But I LIKE JoeB. Does JoeB wander around calling people 'son'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB is homophobic at times and can get very, very old style in his condemnations.

I agree 100% that The Rabbi is barely sentient.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh. Well.

I did not know that.

 

[Douger]

The message would be that murkins are STILL idiots.

 

[rdean]

This has been a really strange GOP primary. Almost the whole way through we've seen an almost rabid attempt to deny Mitt the nomination so a REAL conservative can be nominated. But the primary electorate would have none of it.

Since Mitt's got this all wrapped up what does this say about conservatism and the GOP party?

Is Mitt the REAL conservative and the rest RINO's?

Is this the fallout from the Citizen's United ruling?

Is the religous wing of the party losing it's influence?

Is the Tea Party no longer a driving force?

Will we see moderates gaining power in congress?

What say you? What's the message? Or is there a message? How can a moderate win the nomination in a party full of hard core conservatives?

Mitt gets elected and he stays far right. That's where his base is.

The problem with the current Republican Party is their reality and this reality. The largest group receiving Food Stamps are poor Republicans. The Republican Party is 90% white. Their poor is the largest group of poor. But they think if food stamps are denied, it will only be for blacks, Hispanics or that ever present and unknowable "others".

When the poor Republican base says "take away benefits", it doesn't occur to them THEIR benefits will be taken away. It's all driven by race.

Mitt has no respect for the struggling middle class. As far as he's concerned, they are a "stepping stone". Something he can "step on".

 

[The Rabbi]

I think if they run Jeb, it will be a message the grownups are back in charge, and they can trust the GOP again.

Why do the leftist scumbags now all scream that Jeb ought to have run? Before all this they were all bemoaning "another BUsh, just what we need".

Romney is a grown up, s0n. And he's gonna teach Owebama a lesson in how to govern like a president.

Romney is a weirdo in magic underpants...

The fact is, he was a crappy candidate 4 years ago when he finished THIRD.

He hasn't gotten any better and he'll lose bigger than McCain did.

And you will be here bemoaning the fact he wasn't "conservative" enough. Just like you were whining that when you supported Perry last year.

I've said it was a bad idea all along.

If he were a Methodist you'd be all over him. Bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB is homophobic at times and can get very, very old style in his condemnations.

I agree 100% that The Rabbi is barely sentient.

Hey, dude, it's not "homophobic" to point out your stalking behavior is a bit... ummm... weird.

Especially when you were talking about imagining me in high heels... That was kind of odd.

(I never call anyone "son". I usually use "Guy" or "dude".)

Incidently, I freely admit to being an old person...

of course, the liberals think I'm conservative and the conservatives think I'm liberal... But I think I'm beyond labels and just go with what works.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney is a weirdo in magic underpants...

The fact is, he was a crappy candidate 4 years ago when he finished THIRD.

He hasn't gotten any better and he'll lose bigger than McCain did.

And you will be here bemoaning the fact he wasn't "conservative" enough. Just like you were whining that when you supported Perry last year.

I've said it was a bad idea all along.

If he were a Methodist you'd be all over him. Bigot.

Not really. Bush is a methodist, and I voted for him twice. Even stick up for him when he's being unfairly criticized. When it's afair criticism, though, I'm totally in agreement. And the same with Obama, for that matter. I criticize when it's appropriate.

Now, yes, I do have this bias against Mormonism, which I freely admit to. I just don't accept it as a valid religion, probably because we know it's founder was a two-bit con man. I put Scientology in the same category, actually.

But even if Romney weren't a Mormon, there's things about him I don't like. I don't like the fact that he switches or "Etch-a-Sketches" his positions, and hopes we are all too dumb to notice. I don't mean he simply changes his mind about things, I've done that. I mean that his positions are entirely based on who he is trying to appeal to, and there's nothing really honest about what he believes.

I don't like his business practices, which is kind of everything we've done wrong in this country in the last 30 years. As I have often said, when you destroy those union middle class jobs and replace them with low wage McJobs at Staples, you make people more dependent on government. The more dependent on government they become, the more they are likely to vote for more of that.

Give a man a good salary for an honest day's work, he's going to be very reluctant to give that up on April 15th every year. Might even ask for some accountability.

The Romney mentality is ultimately making Liberalism inevitable.

 

[BDBoop]

Romney is a weirdo in magic underpants...

The fact is, he was a crappy candidate 4 years ago when he finished THIRD.

He hasn't gotten any better and he'll lose bigger than McCain did.

And you will be here bemoaning the fact he wasn't "conservative" enough. Just like you were whining that when you supported Perry last year.

I've said it was a bad idea all along.

If he were a Methodist you'd be all over him. Bigot.

Not really. Bush is a methodist, and I voted for him twice. Even stick up for him when he's being unfairly criticized. When it's afair criticism, though, I'm totally in agreement. And the same with Obama, for that matter. I criticize when it's appropriate.

Now, yes, I do have this bias against Mormonism, which I freely admit to. I just don't accept it as a valid religion, probably because we know it's founder was a two-bit con man. I put Scientology in the same category, actually.

But even if Romney weren't a Mormon, there's things about him I don't like. I don't like the fact that he switches or "Etch-a-Sketches" his positions, and hopes we are all too dumb to notice. I don't mean he simply changes his mind about things, I've done that. I mean that his positions are entirely based on who he is trying to appeal to, and there's nothing really honest about what he believes.

I don't like his business practices, which is kind of everything we've done wrong in this country in the last 30 years. As I have often said, when you destroy those union middle class jobs and replace them with low wage McJobs at Staples, you make people more dependent on government. The more dependent on government they become, the more they are likely to vote for more of that.

Give a man a good salary for an honest day's work, he's going to be very reluctant to give that up on April 15th every year. Might even ask for some accountability.

The Romney mentality is ultimately making Liberalism inevitable.

Tell me more (on the bolded bit.)