TexasCHLforum.com

SNIP

74novaman wrote:
This way, a TRUE conservative can run in 2016, and maybe we can FINALLY turn to the right.

IF that man "occupying" the White House gets another four years, do you really think we will get a chance to run ANYBODY in 2016? I guarantee this nation CAN NOT take another four years of that man...I am also not "pro-Romney" but that man in the White House has to go.

74novaman wrote: Yes, you're right that you can guarantee Obama will be worse than Romney. But to me, he'll only manage to be worse by a little bit because we should be able to put enough Republicans in the congress to counter any shenanigans. The difference between them is a measure of SPEED, not DIRECTION. So IF Obama wins, the blame for the failure of his policies cannot be dumped at the feet of another republican but can rest where they rightly belong.

This way, a TRUE conservative can run in 2016, and maybe we can FINALLY turn to the right.

So, what I hear you saying is, if the choice is between Obama and Romney, then you'd rather see things go left faster (Obama), because...

1) We can put enough Republicans in congress to counter him
2) 'They' won't be able to blame Republicans for Obama's failures, and
3) We'll put in a 'good guy' in 2016.

Does that correctly sum it up?

My response is...
1) We should put those same Repubs in regardless who wins, and they can counteract whoever leans left. In fact, those congressional Repubs should be able to deflect Romney even further to the right than they could Obama.
2) 'They' blame Repubs regardless -- Have you heard Obama recently? All His failures are because the Repubs haven't rolled over and embraced His plans. We're too stupid to understand his whole jobs bill, so he's going to piece it out for us.
3) And... So if you don't like the Repub running in 2016, do we allow ANOTHER Dem to win so we can try yet again in 2020?? 2024?? 2028? ...

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see ANY advantage to allowing Obama to have another term. No matter who is on the "R" side of the ballot. Frankly, I'm not sure the nation could survive another 4 years of this. Can you imagine the damage that 8-years of 9+ percent unemployment and the current level of Government spending would cause? My God -- it would take decades to recover even if the Democratic Party shriveled up and blew away as a result.

74novaman wrote:Yes, you're right that you can guarantee Obama will be worse than Romney. But to me, he'll only manage to be worse by a little bit because we should be able to put enough Republicans in the congress to counter any shenanigans.

I disagree. If Obama is POTUS the Republicans in congress will oppose his socialist plans, especially if the number of Republicans in congress increases from the 2012 elections.

BUT. And it's a big but. Maybe even bigger than Michelle's.

If this country elects a Republican POTUS with socialist leanings, most of the Republicans in congress will go along with his evil plans, in the name of party solidarity. The Democrats may complain the scheme isn't socialist enough but they will make sure it passes. So when you consider the effect of congressional RINOS, Romney might be worse than Obama.

Mitt supports gun control, socialist healthcare, and higher taxes on working people. He's running in the wrong primary.

sjfcontrol wrote: So, what I hear you saying is, if the choice is between Obama and Romney, then you'd rather see things go left faster (Obama), because...

1) We can put enough Republicans in congress to counter him
2) 'They' won't be able to blame Republicans for Obama's failures, and
3) We'll put in a 'good guy' in 2016.

Does that correctly sum it up?

My response is.......

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see ANY advantage to allowing Obama to have another term. No matter who is on the "R" side of the ballot. Frankly, I'm not sure the nation could survive another 4 years of this. Can you imagine the damage that 8-years of 9+ percent unemployment and the current level of Government spending would cause? My God -- it would take decades to recover even if the Democratic Party shriveled up and blew away as a result.

Here's a possible danger of having all three branches occupied by Republicans.

The Republican congress cannot say no to a Republican president. They never say no when it comes to spending money and waging wars.

If a guy like Romney is in office he will do what ever he wants. He is not a conservative. Period. Just listen to his own words; he backed the stimulus, the bailouts, the unfunded social programs, the unfunded wars; just listen to his own words. He has to lie to get elected; to get past the base of his party.

If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

fulano wrote: If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

This would be my hope if we are forced to endure another 4 years of obamination. Govt gridlock is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

74novaman wrote:

fulano wrote: If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

This would be my hope if we are forced to endure another 4 years of obamination. Govt gridlock is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

I think Rick should be elected President......this Rick
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1039849853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

fulano wrote:I think Rick should be elected President......this Rick
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1039849853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any Rick but Santorum.

Barbi Q wrote:

74novaman wrote:Yes, you're right that you can guarantee Obama will be worse than Romney. But to me, he'll only manage to be worse by a little bit because we should be able to put enough Republicans in the congress to counter any shenanigans.

I disagree. If Obama is POTUS the Republicans in congress will oppose his socialist plans, especially if the number of Republicans in congress increases from the 2012 elections.

BUT. And it's a big but. Maybe even bigger than Michelle's.

If this country elects a Republican POTUS with socialist leanings, most of the Republicans in congress will go along with his evil plans, in the name of party solidarity. The Democrats may complain the scheme isn't socialist enough but they will make sure it passes. So when you consider the effect of congressional RINOS, Romney might be worse than Obama.

Mitt supports gun control, socialist healthcare, and higher taxes on working people. He's running in the wrong primary.

Good one! I hope you're wrong.

fulano wrote: If a guy like Romney is in office he will do what ever he wants. He is not a conservative. Period. Just listen to his own words; he backed the stimulus, the bailouts, the unfunded social programs, the unfunded wars; just listen to his own words. He has to lie to get elected; to get past the base of his party.

If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

lkd wrote: While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

The Supreme Court is a very valid reason to vote for him in the actual election.

And I agree with your comment/suspicion regarding who exactly is picking the GOP candidates.

sjfcontrol wrote:

lkd wrote: While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

The Supreme Court is a very valid reason to vote for him in the actual election.

And I agree with your comment/suspicion regarding who exactly is picking the GOP candidates.

Romney put Democrats and Libs in the Mass courts, passing over the Conservatives, Republicans .... so ... that's yet another reason why I'd never vote for him.



Logic flaw example:
He supported Roe vs Wade"because it's been the law for 30 years, since 1973" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Length of time" shouldn't be a determinate factor of right or wrong
I mean Blacks were not "people" back in the 1700s, nor in 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States) so BY THE SAME REASONING, since that was law longer than Roe vs Wade, that's something his logic supports.

================

Example above used because each issue concerns "Rights" which Supreme Court should uphold, whether it's right to defend life (guns/2A), right to life/liberty/pursuit of ...(personhood) (based on an arbitrary criteria as color or age) etc
Not to start a debate here on any individual issue.

RPB wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

lkd wrote: While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

The Supreme Court is a very valid reason to vote for him in the actual election.

And I agree with your comment/suspicion regarding who exactly is picking the GOP candidates.

Romney put Democrats and Libs in the Mass courts, passing over the Conservatives, Republicans .... so ... that's yet another reason why I'd never vote for him.

Track record ...

Logic flaw example:
He supported Roe vs Wade"because it's been the law for 30 years, since 1973" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Length of time" shouldn't be a determinate factor of right or wrong
I mean Blacks were not "people" back in the 1700s, nor in 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States) so BY THE SAME REASONING, since that was law longer than Roe vs Wade, that's something his logic supports.

================

Example above used because each issue concerns "Rights" which Supreme Court should uphold, whether it's right to defend life (guns/2A), right to life/liberty/pursuit of ...(personhood) (based on an arbitrary criteria as color or age) etc
Not to start a debate here on any individual issue.

Frankly, I don't care about any of that. He has put (and will put) more republicans into judgeships than Obama has/will. In a two-man race, he still wins.

sjfcontrol wrote:

RPB wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

lkd wrote: While attractive, the ONLY reason I'd punch the ticker for Romney is because of Supreme Court Nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between him and the guy in the Oval Office right now, and that's pretty sad.

I continue to get the nagging feeling that the MSM is picking our GOP candidate. I'm not trying to be all "tinfoil hat" here, but I keep thinking, "Is this honestly the best the GOP has to offer?"

The Supreme Court is a very valid reason to vote for him in the actual election.

And I agree with your comment/suspicion regarding who exactly is picking the GOP candidates.

Romney put Democrats and Libs in the Mass courts, passing over the Conservatives, Republicans .... so ... that's yet another reason why I'd never vote for him.

Track record ...

Logic flaw example:
He supported Roe vs Wade"because it's been the law for 30 years, since 1973" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Length of time" shouldn't be a determinate factor of right or wrong
I mean Blacks were not "people" back in the 1700s, nor in 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court that held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States) so BY THE SAME REASONING, since that was law longer than Roe vs Wade, that's something his logic supports.

================

Example above used because each issue concerns "Rights" which Supreme Court should uphold, whether it's right to defend life (guns/2A), right to life/liberty/pursuit of ...(personhood) (based on an arbitrary criteria as color or age) etc
Not to start a debate here on any individual issue.

Frankly, I don't care about any of that. He has put (and will put) more republicans into judgeships than Obama has/will. In a two-man race, he still wins.

Doubt it
Track record ... out of 36 judicial appointments (2003-2005), only 9 were Republicans. he appointed more Democrats than Republicans http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/03/romne ... icial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://trueromney.com/category/judges-courts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BOSTON.COM: “Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”

As I said earlier in this thread to the person who was giving that same information...

Exactly how may Republicans has Obama nominated for the courts? How many do you expect him to?

Who wins?

sjfcontrol wrote:As I said earlier in this thread to the person who was giving that same information...

Exactly how may Republicans has Obama nominated for the courts? How many do you expect him to?

Who wins?

R-Obama-ney will get Obama to stay in office since not many Conservatives will vote for him, (I certainly won't) so it isn't a contest between Obama and Romney anyway.