Romney is supposedly of the more so-called "conservative" candidates. However he does have good hair. Isn't it usually the best hair wins?
The first mission to depose Saddam was brilliantly executed. It was the followup that was pretty sad - until Petraeus stepped in. Whatever Bush arranges is legitimate as a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). However, should it reach the level of a treaty the Senate must approve. Otherwise the next President can change the status quo.
That is not a myth:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html
That is why so many corporations leave the US.
You have the right to organize or to change jobs. It's thoughts like yours that lead to socialism and destroy jobs.
What a bleeding heart. The FACT remains that everybody has the SAME Constitutional rights. No discrimination allowed in America. That means positive (i.e., favoritism) as well as negative. We are all equal under the law. I really wish you liberals would get a new theme.
The point is you liberals don't really understand freedom of speech. You are a bunch of busybodies attempting to make everyone act "nice" to protect your sensitive "ears" and "feelings" Â…and in the process you wind up curtailing our Constitutional rights. Get a spine or at least some ear plugs.
I have a problem with that because it is the government dictating to the people what they can say. Where is our freedom of speech in that? And you are wrong that I think Christians have more rightsÂ…your leftist hatred of Chrisitians is quite obviousÂ…whatever happened to that wonderful liberal "tolerance" you're supposed to have? What's your big beef against Christians anyway? Are you a homo who wants to marry? Or is it you just like aborting babies?
RvW is about twisting the letter of the law. Where in the Constitution does it say a "woman has the right to choose"? What about the father's right to choose? Or the child's right to choose to live? There are THREE people involved in a pregnancy. You cannot oppress two out of three with your secular "progressive" ideologies. I will not accept it. Whatever happened to the "right to life"? Your secular progressive stance only debases the value of human life in the process of snuffing it out. Hopefully we will soon reverse RvW. It was a sad mistake. Hell, even the woman in the case now opposes the law.
Our founders stated the source of our rights. No man or State can take away our rights because they come from a Higher Source:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So you want to ignore the proof I presented? Typical for a lib. Re abortion clinics there were maybe one or two doctors shot and both Evangelicals and all Christians abhorred the murders and sought justice. Instead of worrying about Evangelicals and their Jesus camps for kids, why don't you stop sipping the liberal koolaid and worry instead about radical Islamists? Now those are some dangerous dudes. They have really dangerous training camps and they teach their kids to actually kill.
Since when did you subscribe to the UN Declaration of Human Rights? That is not a declaration I would want to followÂ…you should.read the fine print.
How do we fund our government? By setting Americans free to do what they do best.
Lower tax rates = more investments = more business = more profits = more taxes collected
Higher tax rates = less investments = less business = less profits = less taxes collected
Essentially the pie gets newer and bigger when Americans are not hampered by heavy taxes. Everybody prospers, including the government coffers. Dims just want to take bigger tax bites from the old pie. That just eats up the pie. It leaves less pie (and jobs) for the rest of us, especially when the "cooks"(business people) take their portion of pie and go home (quit, contract, or go elsewhere).
Romney isn't any worse than the Democrats when it comes to health care. Which is not sayinga whole lot.
There are laws today that require people to buy auto insurance! Frankly, I don't like that law either. Romney's forcing everyone to buy insurance at least prevents the freeloaders from going to the emergency rooms who jack up the costs for others who have to make a regular appointment to see a doctor. Actually Hillary Clinton and other Dems also require the individual and employer mandate in their plans too. The idea is to increase the pool to hopefully lower costs. But just like with auto insurance there are those who still do not pay and the rest of us wind up getting uninsured/underinsured insurance to pay for them. Romney's MA plan has since allowed 20% of the uninsured poor to not pay - so it seems the real problem is still not solved. IMO the top-down government approach does not work.
Instead of government health care, we need to get the government OUT of health care. But we also need to get the insurance companies OUT of health care at least for the most part. Insurance companies should act like insurance companies, not making decisions for you and your doctor (the same goes for government). We also need to get employers OUT of health care (they don't have your best interests at heart either). There are just too many layers of control today which translates into more expense. People need to go back to the old way of paying their own way at the local clinic directly out of their own pockets. Maybe buy some cheap catastrophic insurance strictly for the big ticket items. Get people on HSAs. When there is a direct monetary relationship between the doctor/clinic and the patient prices will come down. Let the market work!
