Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[thereisnospoon2]

It would be so wonderful having Ann Romney as First Lady.

The poor and middle class really need another good *******.

Not a of fan of Mrs Romney at all. but is about time those wasteful programs which have zero accountability are cut.
There are far too many people gaming the system and receiving benefits for which they are not entitled.

 

[Boss]

Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights

Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. ******* mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of ******* mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.

The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?

As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen

No right is being restricted. No one is promoting "heterosexual" marriage, that would be unconstitutional. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, this is not prohibited due to sexuality. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" that is what you are fighting for. Gays are not being treated as "sub-human" ...they just aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the definition of 'marriage' to accommodate the sexual lifestyles they are free to have.

As for your "consenting adult" argument, what makes you think "consenting adult" can't be redefined in order to meet my criteria for what I want 'marriage' to be?

 

[Boss]

NO, I am not. The conservatives who stayed home or voted third party in Nov 2012 gave obama his second term. I am not happy with the old line assholes who control the GOP, but electing liberal democrats is the not the way to fix that problem.

Well I am not happy about an Obama second term and I also don't believe electing liberal democrats will fix the GOP.... but why is it the fault of conservatives when the party elite backed a moderate nominee? Seems to me the people who shat in their hats were the GOP establishment elite, who continue to try and push moderate candidates instead of backing a true conservative. 2012 was the second election in a row where they did that, will 2016 be a repeat? If so, expect the same results.

You are missing the point. Refusing to vote for Romney elected Obama. Yes, we are all pissed at the GOP establishment, but how does electing liberal democrats change anything?

Is a middle of the road moderate republican better than a far left democrat? YES, every day. Wake up, listen to what you are saying.

No, I'm not missing the point. I did not vote in 2012, I stayed at home. My state was firmly in the Romney column, and I knew that. Had it been close, I would have held my nose and voted for Romney... no need in ever holding your nose if you don't have to.

I did my best to support Romney as he ran against Obama, but in my heart I knew he wasn't going to win. Since 2012, the GOP establishment has really pissed me off with their War on the Tea Party. Unless they nominate a candidate the Tea Party supports for 2016, they can't count on my vote. Would anything else be better than President Hilary? Oh yeah! But if that's how the GOP intends to play, then they deserve to lose.

I am holding out hope the 2014 mid-terms shock the establishment enough to change their course. They've endured a few close calls already and have spent a lot of their war chest just getting their stalwarts back on the ballot again. But I am fed up with this mealy-mouth not standing up to Obama and the Dems while going after the Tea Party like they are the enemy.

The Tea Party is the only political entity that has been absolutely correct all the way down the line, from legislation we should have never backed to candidates we should have never nominated. If the establishment wants to continue to ignore them... or worse, attack them relentlessly... they deserve to lose and lose big, in my opinion.

 

[RKMBrown]

Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights

Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. ******* mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of ******* mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.

The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?

As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen

No right is being restricted. No one is promoting "heterosexual" marriage, that would be unconstitutional. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, this is not prohibited due to sexuality. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" that is what you are fighting for. Gays are not being treated as "sub-human" ...they just aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the definition of 'marriage' to accommodate the sexual lifestyles they are free to have.

As for your "consenting adult" argument, what makes you think "consenting adult" can't be redefined in order to meet my criteria for what I want 'marriage' to be?

Not true, rights are explicitly being restricted. You are being obtuse.

Not true, there are over 20k individual statues that refer to benefits of marriage that, currently, do not apply to same sex marriages. Thus, by matter of fact, the 20k statues benefit heterosexuals by exclusion of same sex couples, and also btw. by exclusion of singles, and plural marriages, which is another topic.

Catholic/Christian Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, last I checked the government is to be restricted from making Christianity a government authorized religion. If one is restricted by the religious tenants of Christian marriages, clearly that is promoting a particular religion as the state religion.

You say there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage." You might as well just put your hands over your ears and stomp your feet, cause your claim is ludicrous.

Your claim that gays want to change the definition of marriage is equally ludicrous. There are two issues at hand, your religious marriage that allows you to have a relationship between you your god and your wife, and your marriage license, which records the contract between you and your wife as an official record with the state. You can define your religious marriage any damn you and your satan worshiping religion wants to, but your religious beliefs do not give you the right to restrict homosexuals from getting a legal marriage licence from the state.

 

[Boss]

Right to marriage is covered by the right to life as marriage is an important part of life. Look it up. Banning gays from marriage via federal laws is against the constitution, and further against the precepts of the civil rights acts. Here is a biased report on the SCOTUS rulings on marriage being a fundamental right. Video 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage American Foundation for Equal Rights

Homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals want to make something into marriage that is not marriage. ******* mailboxes is not marriage, it doesn't matter how much I want it to be, or how many times I claim that it is the same thing, it's just not marriage and I'm not being denied the right to marriage because I can't marry my mailbox. I'm being denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accommodate my sexual proclivity of ******* mailboxes. That ain't unconstitutional.

The constitution prohibits government from restricting our rights. Who the _uck gave you the right to _uck over gays with laws promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage? The right to treat gays as sub-human?

As for your mailbox sex question.. What makes you think a mailbox is a consenting adult with the rights and privileges of an American Citizen

No right is being restricted. No one is promoting "heterosexual" marriage, that would be unconstitutional. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, this is not prohibited due to sexuality. There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" that is what you are fighting for. Gays are not being treated as "sub-human" ...they just aren't allowed to arbitrarily change the definition of 'marriage' to accommodate the sexual lifestyles they are free to have.

As for your "consenting adult" argument, what makes you think "consenting adult" can't be redefined in order to meet my criteria for what I want 'marriage' to be?

Not true, rights are explicitly being restricted. You are being obtuse.

Not true, there are over 20k individual statues that refer to benefits of marriage that, currently, do not apply to same sex marriages. Thus, by matter of fact, the 20k statues benefit heterosexuals by exclusion of same sex couples, and also btw. by exclusion of singles, and plural marriages, which is another topic.

Catholic/Christian Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, last I checked the government is to be restricted from making Christianity a government authorized religion. If one is restricted by the religious tenants of Christian marriages, clearly that is promoting a particular religion as the state religion.

You say there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage." You might as well just put your hands over your ears and stomp your feet, cause your claim is ludicrous.

Your claim that gays want to change the definition of marriage is equally ludicrous. There are two issues at hand, your religious marriage that allows you to have a relationship between you your god and your wife, and your marriage license, which records the contract between you and your wife as an official record with the state. You can define your religious marriage any damn you and your satan worshiping religion wants to, but your religious beliefs do not give you the right to restrict homosexuals from getting a legal marriage licence from the state.

Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. It's not being obtuse, it's being honest.

Now, if you'd like to dismiss the argument about "marriages" and enter a discussion about civil domestic contracts, I am all for that idea. I have no problem with the concept of removing government from the "marriage" business entirely and replacing that with civil union contracts. In fact, I think that is the most reasonable solution to the problem for all parties. But you see.... the dirty little secret here is, you don't really WANT the issues resolved, then you won't be able to bash and trash conservatives anymore. This isn't about you fighting for the rights of gays as much as it's about denigrating conservatives and traditional religious values.

 

[Zander]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

 

[RKMBrown]

Again... there is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as "mailbox marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" ...there is just one marriage, the union of a man and woman. You're wrong, a marriage between two people of the same sex is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. They are fundamentally different. Placing a modifier on the front of a term does not change the term, it qualifies it. A marriage between two men or between two women is not a heterosexual marriage it is a homosexual marriage. They already exist. You can deny their existence all you like, you can bury your head in the sand. Won't change the fact that they do in fact exist. For example, an illegal marriage would include a marriage between a man and a little girl of say 10. They could get married illegally if they want, but it would not be seen as a legal marriage by any reasonable person.

It's not being obtuse, it's being honest. No you are being dishonest, I was being nice by calling it obtuse.

Now, if you'd like to dismiss the argument about "marriages" and enter a discussion about civil domestic contracts, I am all for that idea. I used to be a proponent of ripping and replacing federal marriage laws with civil union language but I've come to realize that there are two separate and distinct issues at hand. These Jim Crow like laws against gays need to be stricken from the books. Additionally we need to stop abusing the civil rights of singles, and people who wish to enter into plural marriages. But these are separate issues.

I have no problem with the concept of removing government from the "marriage" business entirely and replacing that with civil union contracts. In fact, I think that is the most reasonable solution to the problem for all parties. So you're ok with blacks riding on the bus so long as they get in the back that about sum up your point? Hey we're all on the same bus why do the blacks (gays) get to complain still?

But you see.... the dirty little secret here is, you don't really WANT the issues resolved, then you won't be able to bash and trash conservatives anymore.

I'm much more of a conservative than you are, conservative does not mean anti-gay or anti-black or anti-any other minority group. Your religious views on morals of gays are religious views not conservative views. Just because there was a movement of religious zelots such as yourself to the republican party in the 80s, does not make your gay bashing views conservative views.

This isn't about you fighting for the rights of gays as much as it's about denigrating conservatives and traditional religious values.

I'm christian, I follow Jesus teachings. My view of some of the old religious laws like types of cloven animals and homosexual acts as being a sin against god is that they need to be revisited, just as Jesus told the people to put down their stones, I don't see laws restricting liberty of gays as anything less than legal stones being tossed about by the sanctimonious religious right.

My politics are constitutional conservative, aka. modern libertarian conservative. I'm 35years married. I'm not gay, never have been gay. I have 3 children.

In blue...

 

[boedicca]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

Romney would be considered an ideal candidate in a culture where Character mattered more than Skin Color.

Just sayin'.

 

[House]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.

 

[Youch]

House,

We are facing an avalanche of dangerous progressivism, Statism, whatever you want to call it. And a good man steps into the arena, and fails. And you call him a shitclown. That is why I made the obvious psychological reference. Let me remind you of something:

You continue to make assumptions about me.

His failure is not even my primary motivator, let alone my sole motivator, for calling him a shitclown.

I made my opinion of the man known in previous posts, so I see no need to rehash them for someone who is too lazy to read but obviously not too busy to bloviate.

Romney, to me, is more like a car salesman than a shit clown. I don't like him because he's to much of a socialist/democrat for me. Way to far to the left for my liking. Plus he's ancient, he'll be 69 in 2016. Additionally he's homophobic, when he insulted that veteran by telling him he was sub-human and thus not good enough to get married in out country... he lost all pretense of getting my vote.

Yes, Mitt lost his chance. Too bad, as we'd have been parsecs farther better off than our current dismall state.

We have two problems. 1) The Republican Establishment (The GOP) is corrupt and self-serving and have not embraced the Tea Party, and 2) the American sheeple keep voting for Santa Claus.

Obama, with his ideological focus on destroying, I mean fundamentally transforming our country, is ensuring that future election cycles are pitted fully against the American citizen and fully for a more powerful central government completely detached from our best interests.

And libs have the audacity to claim the moral high ground.....what a dangerous joke...

 

[Youch]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.

All the polls prove he was elected because of race. When 95% of a certain voter block votes for a black man who never even ran a cash register, obviously race is an issue. Let's hope we've moved past the second first black President.

 

[Youch]

I know you want to suck his cock and all, but it doesn't change the fact that he helped China 100x more than he ever helped the US.

Again, proving my penis compensation theory.

While I know of what you speak, prove your contention that he helped China "100x more" than he helped the U.S.?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.

All the polls prove he was elected because of race. When 95% of a certain voter block votes for a black man who never even ran a cash register, obviously race is an issue. Let's hope we've moved past the second first black President.

The difference between the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama and those who voted for Kerry in '04 was negligible.

 

[Redfish]

I think we are going to see a lot more people like me who have voted but are sitting the next one out. Heck I'm sitting out the next governor election in my state of Wisconsin. I voted for walker in the last two including the recall. I'm done . That doesn't cast a vote for the challenger however..

yes, it does help the challenger. Remember "my vote cancels yours, unless you don't vote". Voting against someone is probably more important than voting for someone.

 

[Redfish]

Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.

Thats what the media told you and you are sticking with it---------------------------------

 

[Redfish]

Romney is a great man who has led an admirable life filled with accomplishments. We'd be lucky to get him! He's exactly the opposite of the dilettante in the White House now....

Just because his skin is white instead of black doesn't mean he and Obama are "exactly the opposite", racist.

All the polls prove he was elected because of race. When 95% of a certain voter block votes for a black man who never even ran a cash register, obviously race is an issue. Let's hope we've moved past the second first black President.

The difference between the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama and those who voted for Kerry in '04 was negligible.

lets see now, some basic math--------------------is 95% of 10,000 as many votes as 95% of 100,000?

its the number voting that matters, not the %.

 

[Redfish]

I never said it was. Yes you did Rights are for everyone------equally. Except gays right? No special rights for any minority or majority. Except heteros, right? Lots of special rights exclusive to heteros correct?

But you also are missing the point--------------the majority does rule at the polling place, in congress, and in local state and city legislatures. 51% or more voting one way decides what laws all of us will live by. This is a new thing you understand that correct? The Constitution used to bind our laws such that a simple majority could not take our liberties way you got that right?

A majority ratified the constitution, a majority approved the signing of the declaration of independence, a majority found OJ innocent. Most murder trials require a unanimous vote, not a simple majority. There is a marked difference between unanimous, super majority requirements, and simple majority requirements.

Majority rules------------why is that so hard for you to grasp?

In blue. Tyranny of the Majority is not what liberty is about, nimrod.

you are mixing two different things. rights and voting majorities. Rights are for everyone regardless of their minority or majority status. Rights are conferred on citizens by a majority vote of the citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney didn't have any good ideas. That was his fatal flaw.

Thats what the media told you and you are sticking with it---------------------------------

I don't see you listing any good ideas Romney had.

 

[RKMBrown]

I never said it was. Yes you did Rights are for everyone------equally. Except gays right? No special rights for any minority or majority. Except heteros, right? Lots of special rights exclusive to heteros correct?

But you also are missing the point--------------the majority does rule at the polling place, in congress, and in local state and city legislatures. 51% or more voting one way decides what laws all of us will live by. This is a new thing you understand that correct? The Constitution used to bind our laws such that a simple majority could not take our liberties way you got that right?

A majority ratified the constitution, a majority approved the signing of the declaration of independence, a majority found OJ innocent. Most murder trials require a unanimous vote, not a simple majority. There is a marked difference between unanimous, super majority requirements, and simple majority requirements.

Majority rules------------why is that so hard for you to grasp?

In blue. Tyranny of the Majority is not what liberty is about, nimrod.

you are mixing two different things. rights and voting majorities. Rights are for everyone regardless of their minority or majority status. Rights are conferred on citizens by a majority vote of the citizens.

Wrong again. My rights are inherit. YOU DON'T OWN ME. This tyrannical majority, led by authoritarians like you, is restricting our inherit rights.