• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitt Romney

Unlike most other previous Republican Presidents, Mitt Romney would likely campaign on domestic and economic issues rather than foreign policy, which the GOP is better known for. Considering the state of global affairs, this worries me. To balance the ticket, he'll probably have someone with strong ties to foreign and military affairs.

That's pretty much what everyone else has done. Look at Obama picking Biden. You'll have to build one hell of a case to convince me that it wasn't due to his lack of actual experience :) .
 
****** I do see:( It's why some on the Conservative side are more interested in devouring themselves rather than fully taking on the opposition. Now this Obama Health care fiasco and a few other curren things seem to say otherwise because the GOP is united - but the zealots - those who really believe there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion and who think their Gun racks are saving the Republic - they will at this woeful point settle for nothing short of purity. Throw in those simply wanting a "Christian" :( They amount to less than 10% probably of the National Electorate, but possibly a full Third of GOP regular Primary Voters. In short their myopia paves the way for defeat.
Bingo. The Republican party needs to get back to its core issues (that have nothing to do with social issues) and that is what will permit them to walk all over the Democratic party.

The thing that gets me most about issues such as gay-marriage and universal health-care is that the Republicans just sat there and said: no.

Had they had some foresight, the proper strategy would be to say: ok, between gays it's civil-unions, otherwise marriage. Then they would have come out looking as compromisers and uniters of the country. The same thing with health-care, pick a model that you prefer better and then put it on the floor, say what the Swiss have (which is the more capitalist one out of any European country.)
Weeding out the phonies is not devouring themselves and I am pretty sure that if a pro-2nd amendment,anti-abortion,anti-gay marriage,anti-socialized medicine, Anti-illegal immigration, Pro-military/pro-Iraq war, democrat who doesn't believe in the man made global warming fairy tale was running as a liberal or trying to run a moderate the libs would eat him alive.
Yeh and if the Republicans had sense, they'd take advantage of this guy's weakness and nuke him from orbit. Unfortunately, the present Republican party is just a bunch of buffoons running around and forcing everyone to fit into a particular mold or get out.
 
James, you effectively gave me enough material to counter all your points :) . They, in effect, prove you wrong.



Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States, as opposed to the federal government, have the right to impose certain gun-control legislation. Romney was not out of line.

No self respecting conservative would support any anti-2nd amendment legislation regardless if it was on the state or federal level.


I'm going to file that site in the same category as I file Democratic Underground: wastebasket


Still doesn't change what he did.

Did you even read this?

Raised service fees like highway ads, from $200 to $2,000. (Jan 2008)
Fees are appropriate for the government to provide services. (Jan 2008)
I support the Bush tax cuts. (Jan 2008)
Avoid recession with immediate middle-income tax cuts. (Jan 2008)
Raised $240M in MA fees, but only covering cost of services. (Jan 2008)
Zero tax rate on capital gains, for incomes up to $200,000. (Jan 2008)
Lowering taxes, like Bush tax cuts, grows the economy. (Jan 2008)

FactCheck: Never opposed 2003 Bush cuts, but never supported. (Jan 2008)
Reduce the tax burden on middle-income families. (Dec 2007)
Signed no-tax pledge; Dems pledge to raise taxes. (Sep 2007)
Death tax just doesn’t make sense. (Aug 2007)

Commission studied FairTax and found serious flaws. (Aug 2007)
Pledges no new taxes in 2007 after refusing pledge in 2002. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Did not raise MA taxes, but DID raise MA fees. (May 2007)
End taxes on interests, dividends & capital gains. (May 2007)
My pledge: no freeze on tax rollback. (Mar 2002)
Pledges not to raise taxes. (Nov 1994)


He raised fees on people and businesses that use services, not the taxes of individuals. He, in effect, implemented a crude consumption tax, not a tax on incomes or savings. If anything, he did things right here.


All he did was raise things that were technically not called taxes which is still raising taxes.


So what? States, by the constitution, are responsible for the social issues of this country.

No conservative would ever support socialized medicine.
Since when do Conservatives ignore the environment in favor of policies that give a modicum of economic benefit while destroying the environment around them?

Theodore Roosevelt was a great man. He founded our first National Parks. He was the man who said that you should speak softly and carry a big stick (which, in this world, a policy I like.) He was also a Republican.

And yes, our emissions are screwing us over. There's no such thing in this world as having no consequences for your actions, none.

Good, I approve.



No real conservative buys into the man made global warming fairy tale.
Again, look through your list:
GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”. (Feb 2008)
Deport illegal immigrants in 90 days under the ideal setting. (Jan 2008)
Found Z-visa & McCain-Kennedy bill to be offensive. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, his ads DID accuse McCain of “amnesty”. (Jan 2008)
Illegal immigrants should go home eventually. (Dec 2007)
No mandatory prison term for employers who hire illegals. (Dec 2007)
AdWatch: Huckabee ok’ed tuition & scholarships for illegals. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term. (Dec 2007)
Welcome the people who have been standing in line first. (Dec 2007)
Employers have no means of knowing who’s legal & who’s not. (Dec 2007)
Avoid chain migration; disallow families from one citizen. (Dec 2007)
Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get tuition break in schools. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Illegals employed at his home, but by contractor. (Nov 2007)
AdWatch: No driver’s license & in-state tuition for illegals. (Nov 2007)

FactCheck: MA state cops never enforced immigration laws. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Took no action against 4 Mass. sanctuary cities. (Nov 2007)
Reduce federal funding to sanctuary cities. (Sep 2007)
Z-visa is not technically amnesty; but is in fact amnesty. (Sep 2007)
FactCheck: NYC never declared itself a “sanctuary city”. (Sep 2007)
Make America more attractive for legal immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Priorities: secure border, employer verification, no amnesty. (Aug 2007)
Enforce the law against 12 million illegals here now. (Jun 2007)
Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America. (Jun 2007)
Make English national language; communicate in Spanish too. (Jun 2007)
McCain’s plan gives special pathway to those here illegally. (May 2007)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
The 12 million illegal immigrants can’t stay forever. (Jan 2006)
Unfair to allow all illegal immigrants to stay. (Jan 2006)
Tuition breaks encourage illegal immigration. (Nov 2005)

All that proves is Romney flip flop that he does one thing and says another.





Now look at the not underlined ones.
The underlined points are things that I'm guessing that you will support (if not, then go through them one by one and give me your feedback.)
How does that make him a RINO? He's not a social conservative? Look, we know what happens when social conservatism is at the core of your issues, you get 2008.

GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”. (Feb 2008)

Anyone who is actually against illegal imigration should remember the Reagan amnesty.


Deport illegal immigrants in 90 days under the ideal setting. (Jan 2008)


I would want them to serve time in jail before being deported.Getting caught should not be just a free trip home.


Found Z-visa & McCain-Kennedy bill to be offensive. (Jan 2008)
Somehow I doubt that.

FactCheck: Yes, his ads DID accuse McCain of “amnesty”. (Jan 2008)

Pot meet kettle
Illegal immigrants should go home eventually. (Dec 2007)
Eventually is a subjective term just "reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment is"


No mandatory prison term for employers who hire illegals. (Dec 2007)

Those who employ illegals should rot in prison for hiring illegals.


AdWatch: Huckabee ok’ed tuition & scholarships for illegals. (Dec 2007)


HE is probably mad that he didn't think of it first.


FactCheck: Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term. (Dec 2007)

I think you missed this part


Welcome the people who have been standing in line first. (Dec 2007)

I agree with that.However considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.

Employers have no means of knowing who’s legal & who’s not. (Dec 2007)

Totaly bull****. Employers can use the E-verify system and check for proper documentation and visas for certain jobs has to be filled by the employer.

H1B - H1B Visa - H1B Jobs - H1B Application - H1B Requirements - H1B Sponsor - H1B Transfer - H1B Occupations - H1 Visa - H1 Base - H1Base - H1B - H1-B - H-1B


Avoid chain migration; disallow families from one citizen. (Dec 2007)

I oppose chain migration of relatives other than spouse and minor children..However considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.

Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get tuition break in schools. (Nov 2007)

Illegals shouldn't be going to any school in the US.


FactCheck: Illegals employed at his home, but by contractor. (Nov 2007)


He was probably okay with employing an illegal until it became an issue.

AdWatch: No driver’s license & in-state tuition for illegals. (Nov 2007)


Considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.

FactCheck: MA state cops never enforced immigration laws. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Took no action against 4 Mass. sanctuary cities. (Nov 2007)

Actions speak louder than words


Reduce federal funding to sanctuary cities. (Sep 2007)


see this "FactCheck: Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term. "


Z-visa is not technically amnesty; but is in fact amnesty. (Sep 2007)

"GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"


FactCheck: NYC never declared itself a “sanctuary city”. (Sep 2007)


Not relevant.

Make America more attractive for legal immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Its his stand on illegal immigration I dislike


Priorities: secure border, employer verification, no amnesty. (Aug 2007)


I agree with those things but "GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"


Enforce the law against 12 million illegals here now. (Jun 2007)


I agree with that but "GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"


Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America. (Jun 2007)


That is not a statement saying he opposes it.

Make English national language; communicate in Spanish too. (Jun 2007)


By that logic government forms can still be in english as well as ballots, police officers, government workers and so on. So it is not really making English the official language except in name only.


McCain’s plan gives special pathway to those here illegally. (May 2007)


GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”


Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)

I support that. I also think it should apply on the state and local level too.


The 12 million illegal immigrants can’t stay forever. (Jan 2006)
Unfair to allow all illegal immigrants to stay. (Jan 2006)
Tuition breaks encourage illegal immigration. (Nov 2005)


GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”
 
The thing that gets me most about issues such as gay-marriage and universal health-care is that the Republicans just sat there and said: no.

Gay marriage I agree is a social issue. But how is socialized medicine I.E. forcing tax payers to pay for the health of others/government ran health care just a social issue?

Had they had some foresight, the proper strategy would be to say: ok, between gays it's civil-unions, otherwise marriage.

If I called a pile of dog shit a t-bone steak would you eat it? After all I changed the name of it, shouldn't that make it different? Is that a no? Then why would changing the name of marriage to civil union or domestic partnership or some other paper coated term for marriage make it different? I used to be on board that band of lets legalize civil unions and domestic partnerships for gays but I realized that all you are doing is just changing the name.Its a scam of closet gay marriage supporters to appease those who want gay marriage and the morons who buy into the notion that somehow changing the name of something makes it different.
 
Last edited:
**** Can I assume that after such a deluge that you might think one Sarah Palin would be an ideal President if only she was electable ?????:shock:
 
I think that there is room in America for a fiscal conservative/social moderate President. However....its looking less likely that that person will come from the Republican party.

Fat chance of it coming from the Democrat party too.
 
What says you? He's alright in my book. In light of the governor from New Mexico, he's a midget in comparison :) . The other thing is that I don't see him making big changes or pushing things (big-time) into the direction where I personally stand. He is, on the other hand, one of the few Republicans that didn't follow the absurd Tea Party movement or Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-with-no-birth-certificate movement or Obama = Socialism/Mao/Hitler movement. He also struck out a moderate route when so many others in the Republican party were just bat**** crazy.

The problem I have with him is that you don't get a sense of his political platform that well from what he says and there's no way to know what he's actually going to do when in office. I don't think Romney is trustworthy in the least.
 
**** Can I assume that after such a deluge that you might think one Sarah Palin would be an ideal President if only she was electable ?????:shock:

Palin is a quitter. Why would a quitter be an ideal candidate? She flipped on the so called highway to nowhere. Her claims of being anti-abortion are false considering the fact she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to Alaska Supreme Court more of the you go to watch what they do more than what they say.
 
Warspite, here are your arguments just how messed up they are:

:roll:

In the underlined portion, you just state that you don't like Mormons. No, you didn't say that you disagree with the doctrine of their church or something that some of their leaders said/did, you just said that you didn't like them. It's like me saying that I don't like black people and then doing a piss-poor attempt to weave Jesse Jackson and his antics into that mess.

Call it a paraprax if you will, I will personally admit I am intolerant on the matter of faith. You should see me go on about Islam. :lol:

Ok, so here you just don't like religious people in general. There are many who are concerned about the after-life and are not zealots or 'overly religious'. That is their personal conviction of what will happen after they die. They generally would like to get into the place that's nicer and try to lead their lives so that they eventually go there.

Nope, I don't. Concern with the afterlife is socially irresponsible in my opinion.

And no, converting others to their faith is not something that makes them into religious lunatics or being 'overly-religious'. They share their ideas with you, describe why it would be in your advantage and you can either politely tell them that you have no interest in their convictions or ask for
more.

Not in my experience, they tend to rat on until I bring out the F-word. Occasionally I have had to use less subtle methods.

Oh yeh, when you become a public individual, your private matters all to often come into the open. I don't think that Romney was looking to make this into some massive hoopla. Hell, he pretty much moved away from the whole damn Tea Party movement when so many others moved towards it with a cross in one hand and a flag in the other.

I would love to know when Romney 'advertised' his faith? I can't recall when he said: Pssst, I'm Mormon, vote for me. Especially since much of the country is Protestant and tends to view Mormons with suspicion. Seems like a dumb strategy and what some on the Right used to push him aside.

Asking that is like asking when the US became a superpower; it happened over time. I did a bit of research on Romney and I noticed an upsurge in his "faith" once he began to be more noticed by the general public.

To qute KOTORII: Perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on the thing she despises :2wave:
 
:roll:



Call it a paraprax if you will, I will personally admit I am intolerant on the matter of faith. You should see me go on about Islam. :lol:



Nope, I don't. Concern with the afterlife is socially irresponsible in my opinion.



Not in my experience, they tend to rat on until I bring out the F-word. Occasionally I have had to use less subtle methods.



Asking that is like asking when the US became a superpower; it happened over time. I did a bit of research on Romney and I noticed an upsurge in his "faith" once he began to be more noticed by the general public.

To qute KOTORII: Perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on the thing she despises :2wave:
you claim you did research on romney, perhaps you could post some links to "demonstrate" when he had an "upsurge" in faith.....
 
***** It would be to his benefit if Romney was even less involved ion the LDS Church. Also one can be away for awhile - a long while and with very rare exception always return. The basic geographic organizational structure of the Church easily allows this. You have a Home Ward & Stake even if you don't attend regularly. Mitt was a LDS Missionary at age 19/21 and I believe 3(?) ofhis 5 sons did a Mission.
 
No self respecting conservative would support any anti-2nd amendment legislation regardless if it was on the state or federal level.

Still doesn't change what he did.

All he did was raise things that were technically not called taxes which is still raising taxes.

No conservative would ever support socialized medicine.

No real conservative buys into the man made global warming fairy tale.

This is the problem with many conservatives who say they are for states' rights. What they really want is national conservatism.
 
Mitt was a LDS Missionary at age 19/21 and I believe 3(?) ofhis 5 sons did a Mission.

I make it a rule to, for the most part, not fault anybody for anything they do before the age of 30.
 
I make it a rule to, for the most part, not fault anybody for anything they do before the age of 30.


**** Then your contact with LDS Men Over 30 is in all probability been quite limited.
 
Gay marriage I agree is a social issue. But how is socialized medicine I.E. forcing tax payers to pay for the health of others/government ran health care just a social issue?
Health-care is a social issue.
GayIf I called a pile of dog shit a t-bone steak would you eat it? After all I changed the name of it, shouldn't that make it different? Is that a no? Then why would changing the name of marriage to civil union or domestic partnership or some other paper coated term for marriage make it different? I used to be on board that band of lets legalize civil unions and domestic partnerships for gays but I realized that all you are doing is just changing the name.Its a scam of closet gay marriage supporters to appease those who want gay marriage and the morons who buy into the notion that somehow changing the name of something makes it different.
Because that's what the whole debate boils down to the American people. Majority opposes marriage, but not civil unions. Is it just a different name? Sure, but the people are happy with it. To the public, that's really all they care about.
 
No self respecting conservative would support any anti-2nd amendment legislation regardless if it was on the state or federal level.
What kind of a purity test is this? Each state will want certain laws on gun laws. Texas will pretty much let you do whatever you want. Fine. That's their deal. Overall, he's been very supportive, yes, supported some restrictions, does that mean he's going to send cops into peoples homes and have them confiscate their guns?
All he did was raise things that were technically not called taxes which is still raising taxes.
Umm... no. Again, this is turning into some black-and-white issue where there isn't one. Let me put it this way. If you use a bridge (or road) more often than I do (as does a large proportion of the populace), that road will undoubtedly wear quicker if there is enough traffic. Why tax everyone proportionally across the board to maintain it? Just tax the primary users.
No conservative would ever support socialized medicine.
Oh get over yourself. The people of Massachusetts got together and said that they wanted this. It was Constitutional (hell, the it pretty much says that this topic is in the hands of the state government) and he gave what them what they wanted.
No real conservative buys into the man made global warming fairy tale.
Oh go read a ****ing paper on this issue.

Conservatives, at least the likes of Ayn Rand, were also intellectuals who thought out issues, they didn't just stick to ideology blindly. This is the other problem with the present movement. There is no brain, it's dead. All you have are the attention whores (Taitz, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc.)

They stick to a political line in the sand and that's it.
All that proves is Romney flip flop that he does one thing and says another.
Umm... no. It proves he has a mind of his own and is capable to evolving with the changing circumstances around him. Overall he's moderate right-wing, but he doesn't stick
GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”. (Feb 2008)

Anyone who is actually against illegal imigration should remember the Reagan amnesty.
So what do you propose we do? Search every crevice of this country for every illegal and put them on a train headed for Mexico? You do realize that this will turn into the biggest civil rights and privacy violation in the history of this country, don't you?

Deport illegal immigrants in 90 days under the ideal setting. (Jan 2008)


I would want them to serve time in jail before being deported.Getting caught should not be just a free trip home.
Cool, in accordance with such wish, we'll need to increase your taxes in order to pay for their jail cell.
Found Z-visa & McCain-Kennedy bill to be offensive. (Jan 2008)
Somehow I doubt that.
Ok, provide evidence. You have your doubts, but until I see actual links to quotes from reliable sources, this is just noise.

FactCheck: Yes, his ads DID accuse McCain of “amnesty”. (Jan 2008)

Pot meet kettle

Eventually is a subjective term just "reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment is"
No, it's a political position that's just a few feet outside your definition of what a conservative is. It means that you'll need to look at this world as a bunch of shades of gray, not right and wrong.

No mandatory prison term for employers who hire illegals. (Dec 2007)

Those who employ illegals should rot in prison for hiring illegals.
Ugh. There's a reason why people want to fine them. It's cheaper than locking them up and that same person will need to go back and figure out how to run his/her shop with legit help, thereby contributing to the economy.

AdWatch: Huckabee ok’ed tuition & scholarships for illegals. (Dec 2007)


HE is probably mad that he didn't think of it first.
... and you show that you have nothing on Romney.

FactCheck: Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term. (Dec 2007)

I think you missed this part
Your point? One is supposed to adopt a specific set of positions early on and keep with them for ages without ever changing or adjust them? Hell, even Bush was more flexible.
Welcome the people who have been standing in line first. (Dec 2007)

I agree with that.However considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.
Yeh, prove it.
Employers have no means of knowing who’s legal & who’s not. (Dec 2007)
Totaly bull****. Employers can use the E-verify system and check for proper documentation and visas for certain jobs has to be filled by the employer.

H1B - H1B Visa - H1B Jobs - H1B Application - H1B Requirements - H1B Sponsor - H1B Transfer - H1B Occupations - H1 Visa - H1 Base - H1Base - H1B - H1-B - H-1B
All that your site does is show how to get info on applications and finding potential employees. Where is the specific search page?

Avoid chain migration; disallow families from one citizen. (Dec 2007)

I oppose chain migration of relatives other than spouse and minor children..However considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.
... aaaaaaaaaaaaaand beside your unsubstantiated suspicions of him (and the image that you've crafted in your mind of him being a 'liberal'), you don't have any actual evidence that he'll carry this out.

Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get tuition break in schools. (Nov 2007)

Illegals shouldn't be going to any school in the US.
Yes. So you agree with Romney?


FactCheck: Illegals employed at his home, but by contractor. (Nov 2007)


He was probably okay with employing an illegal until it became an issue.
Umm... again, no. He hired a contractor. He had no ability to actually know that he was indirectly employing illegals.

You know when you bought that burger and fries at Wendy's which was handed to you by some Hispanic looking woman? What if I told you she's an illegal? You were employing indirectly an illegal, which makes you a liberal and a flip-flopper.

AdWatch: No driver’s license & in-state tuition for illegals. (Nov 2007)


Considering Romney's liberal stance on illegal immigration and the fact is a flip flopper I seriously doubt he means that.
You have no ****ing proof. Your only 'proof' is you calling him a 'liberal' and a 'flip-flopper'.

FactCheck: MA state cops never enforced immigration laws. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Took no action against 4 Mass. sanctuary cities. (Nov 2007)

Actions speak louder than words
Depends on what the Mass constitution permits him to do. If it gives him broad powers to hurt the governance of those cities, then he might be able to do it.

Reduce federal funding to sanctuary cities. (Sep 2007)


see this "FactCheck: Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term. "
He's the governor of a state, not the president of a country. Of course he wouldn't be able to reduce that funding.

Z-visa is not technically amnesty; but is in fact amnesty. (Sep 2007)

"GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"
James, what's your plan for dealing with the illegals in this country? Seriously, lay down the specifics.
Make America more attractive for legal immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Its his stand on illegal immigration I dislike
So, you like him for this part?

Priorities: secure border, employer verification, no amnesty. (Aug 2007)


I agree with those things but "GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"
Dude. Those two ideas aren't even tangentially connected.

Enforce the law against 12 million illegals here now. (Jun 2007)


I agree with that but "GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”"
If you tell me that you're drunk while writing this, then this might begin to make sense.

Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America. (Jun 2007)


That is not a statement saying he opposes it.

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)

I support that. I also think it should apply on the state and local level too.
Hey! Just like in Mexico! Now we're moving forward amigo!

But seriously, aside from the veep and prez, any job should be open to anyone as long as they meet the qualifications. And yes, in Mexico they exclude immigrants (whole ethnic groups) from being a senator to representative to police officers to fire fighters.

I didn't respond to your other comments because I like my brain and don't want to abuse it.
 
In all honesty...Mitt is a Nazi...pure and simple. That is strictly my personal opinion based on the information I have been given...which as we all know information can be sporadic and not 100% clear, but what I have heard of his policies he is a Nazi Reformist of the Republic Party and I don't vote Republican at all but I as soon have McCain then Romney.
 
***** Those who toss around the term Nazi in most cases haven't a clue ........ and I suspect under the right circumstances would collaborate with the worst of tyranny just to keep open access to Starbucks, or be able to get on a Winter cruise or get to keep some video game.
 
What kind of a purity test is this? Each state will want certain laws on gun laws. Texas will pretty much let you do whatever you want. Fine. That's their deal. Overall, he's been very supportive, yes, supported some restrictions, does that mean he's going to send cops into peoples homes and have them confiscate their guns?

Regardless if is a state or federal issue no self respecting conservative would ever support anti-2nd amendment laws.


Umm... no. Again, this is turning into some black-and-white issue where there isn't one. Let me put it this way. If you use a bridge (or road) more often than I do (as does a large proportion of the populace), that road will undoubtedly wear quicker if there is enough traffic. Why tax everyone proportionally across the board to maintain it? Just tax the primary users.

How is raising fees on bunch of other things not the same thing as raising taxes?


Oh get over yourself. The people of Massachusetts got together and said that they wanted this. It was Constitutional (hell, the it pretty much says that this topic is in the hands of the state government) and he gave what them what they wanted.

He could have said no. Again no self respecting conservative would ever support socialized medicine.


Oh go read a ****ing paper on this issue.

Again no self respecting conservative buys into the man made global warming fairy tale religion. Only liberal loonies and retards buy into the man made global warming fairy tale(Oh excuse me you man made global warming religious nuts like to call it climate change so you can claim to be right regardless of how the climate changes)

Conservatives, at least the likes of Ayn Rand, were also intellectuals who thought out issues, they didn't just stick to ideology blindly. This is the other problem with the present movement. There is no brain, it's dead. All you have are the attention whores (Taitz, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc.)

They stick to a political line in the sand and that's it.

You have to stick to conservative ideology to be a conservative. Romney has not done that.

Umm... no. It proves he has a mind of his own and is capable to evolving with the changing circumstances around him. Overall he's moderate right-wing, but he doesn't stick

All it proves is that he is a liberal first and will pretend to be a conservative to run for president.

So what do you propose we do? Search every crevice of this country for every illegal and put them on a train headed for Mexico? You do realize that this will turn into the biggest civil rights and privacy violation in the history of this country, don't you?


I never said **** about actively seeking out every illegal alien. If we cracked down on those who hire illegal and punish them severely then they will stop hiring illegals, No jobs for illegals means illegals will go home and a lot of people will not have motivation to come here illegally. Requiring that anyone arrested show proof of citizenship would also be another thing to crack down on illegals, Cutting off social services and tax payer funded services would also be another step, its works of Oklahoma.
Cool, in accordance with such wish, we'll need to increase your taxes in order to pay for their jail cell.
I imagine in the long run it is a much better solution than just giving them a free trip home. Its worked for Del Rio Texas.You may want to look up Operation Streamline.


Ok, provide evidence. You have your doubts, but until I see actual links to quotes from reliable sources, this is just noise.

His past actions speaks a lot louder than what he claims.

No, it's a political position that's just a few feet outside your definition of what a conservative is. It means that you'll need to look at this world as a bunch of shades of gray, not right and wrong.
The man is going to claim the so-called immigration reform is a good idea and then bash Amnesty.

Ugh. There's a reason why people want to fine them.

Yes because pro-illegals want to give the appearance of fighting crime without actually fighting crime.

It's cheaper than locking them up and that same person will need to go back and figure out how to run his/her shop with legit help, thereby contributing to the economy.


Bull****. The scum who hire illegals are the main magnets that draw people to come here illegally.
... and you show that you have nothing on Romney.

The fact that you choose to defend that man and call him a conservative shows how blind you are. You ignore his past actions and buy into what he has said.

Your point? One is supposed to adopt a specific set of positions early on and keep with them for ages without ever changing or adjust them?
When one behaves exactly like a liberal while governor of Massachusetts and then magically tries to be a conservative when he wants to be president his change is not viewed as genuine. He is viewed as a flip flopper IE John Kerry.

Hell, even Bush was more flexible.

Bush is not a good example to use.Most self respecting conservatives consider Bush a liberal.

Yeh, prove it.

You are in denial my republican cheerleader friend.

All that your site does is show how to get info on applications and finding potential employees. Where is the specific search page?


E-verify?

DHS | E-Verify
... aaaaaaaaaaaaaand beside your unsubstantiated suspicions of him (and the image that you've crafted in your mind of him being a 'liberal'), you don't have any actual evidence that he'll carry this out.


I proved that he is a liberal and a flip flopper. You choose to ignore the evidence of his liberalism and blindly accept the lies he is a conservative.

Yes. So you agree with Romney?

Yes. Whether or not he actually means what he says is another story.
Umm... again, no. He hired a contractor. He had no ability to actually know that he was indirectly employing illegals.

He could have required that the contractor he hired verified the legality of his employee. So there is no excuse.


You know when you bought that burger and fries at Wendy's which was handed to you by some Hispanic looking woman? What if I told you she's an illegal? You were employing indirectly an illegal, which makes you a liberal and a flip-flopper.

Being Hispanic looking does not make one an illegal. If someone told me she was an illegal I would ask for proof and if it turns out that Wendy's was hiring illegals I would report that Wendys and take my business somewhere else.

You have no ****ing proof. Your only 'proof' is you calling him a 'liberal' and a 'flip-flopper'.

I have provided proof, you choose to ignore that proof.

No real conservative believes in the man made global warming fairy tale religion, no real conservative supports socialized medicine, no real conservative supports anti-2nd amendment laws. Someone who says he is against gay marriage does not support civil unions domestic partnerships or any other paper coated term for marriage.

Depends on what the Mass constitution permits him to do. If it gives him broad powers to hurt the governance of those cities, then he might be able to do it.
He's the governor of a state, not the president of a country. Of course he wouldn't be able to reduce that funding.

He made no attempts to deal with it.
James, what's your plan for dealing with the illegals in this country? Seriously, lay down the specifics.

Something similar to what Oklahoma did with HB1804 aka the Tax payer protection act
HB 1804 Summary
HB1804, the Citizens and Taxpayers Protection Act, dealing with clamping down on illegal immigration was signed into law by Governor Henry on May 8th.

This legislation is a product of several years' consultation with state legislators from both parties. It is an important step for the IRLI strategy on incremental state-by-state reform. IRLI provides technical assistance to legislators based on successful measures from other jurisdictions.

HB 1804 is tough on employers violating the law and prevents illegal aliens from obtaining drivers license and benefits, while still protecting the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens and respecting constitutional rights for all persons. HB 1804 includes a mix of criminal, fiscal and anti-fraud provisions that collectively restrict the ability of illegal aliens to unlawfully work and reside within the state.

The Statement of Legislative Intent (Section 2) declares the states compelling interest in immigration law compliance, finding that illegal immigration causes economic hardship and lawless and has been improperly encouraged by public agencies within the state.

Section 3 replicates the federal provision that makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than 1 year or a fine of $1000.00, for any person to transport, harbor, or shelter an alien in reckless disregard for their illegal immigration status. State and local prosecutors now have the tools to stop illegal aliens from "residing" in Oklahoma, or traveling instate in search of unlawful employment.

Section 4 restricts issuance of most official identification documents to U.S. citizens, legal permanent resident aliens or holders of valid unexpired visas. Illegal aliens cannot operate in-state if they lack official documentation. Use of foreign consular cards issued to illegal aliens has been prohibited.

Section 5 requires police to verify the immigration status of persons who have been arrested and detained at a local jail for felony crimes, and report all illegal aliens to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Section 7 requires all public employers to use the Basic Pilot electronic work authorization verification program. State and local public contractors are prohibited from commencing work on a taxpayer-funded contract before they register with the Basic Pilot Program.

Section 8 requires every public agency to verify the lawful presence of aliens aged 14 years or older who applies for state or local public benefits, using the online SAVE system, as authorized by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Standard federal exceptions for emergency health care treatment or other public health services apply. This measure builds on similar provisions developed by IRLI that have been successfully adopted by Virginia, Colorado, and Georgia.

Section 9 provides that employers shall withhold state income tax for independent contractors who failed to provide a Social Security number. Reduces the incentive to hire illegal aliens as cheap day laborers and "contractors," and helps safeguard workers compensation and other labor law protections against abuse.

Section 10 directs the Oklahoma Attorney General to negotiate a "287(g)" cooperative agreement between the State of Oklahoma and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to increase state and local police joint enforcement of federal immigration law with DHS. 287(g) agreements help insure that illegal aliens discovered by Oklahoma police officers are quickly and safely transferred into federal custody. Helps fight "catch and release" abuses that allow criminal aliens back into the neighborhoods where they were arrested.





Some of my ideas
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/24487-solutions-fix-illegal-immigration-problem.html
So, you like him for this part?

His statement is idiotic because this country is already attractive to legal immigration.
Dude. Those two ideas aren't even tangentially connected.

He is spouting reform/immigration compromise. So those things are connected.
If you tell me that you're drunk while writing this, then this might begin to make sense.

I posted that one part to prove that he is a flip flopper.

That is not a statement saying he opposes it.

It is an example of his flip flopping. How is going to claim he wants the laws enforced against the 12-20 million illegals that are here now when he Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”?
Hey! Just like in Mexico! Now we're moving forward amigo!

Our constitution make us like Mexico?
Article Two
Section 1:
Clause 5: Qualifications for office
 
Last edited:
What says you? He's alright in my book. In light of the governor from New Mexico, he's a midget in comparison :) . The other thing is that I don't see him making big changes or pushing things (big-time) into the direction where I personally stand. He is, on the other hand, one of the few Republicans that didn't follow the absurd Tea Party movement or Obama-is-a-Muslim-terrorist-with-no-birth-certificate movement or Obama = Socialism/Mao/Hitler movement. He also struck out a moderate route when so many others in the Republican party were just bat**** crazy.

1. Any Republican that can't bring in the Tea Party movement loses in 2012. The numbers don't lie. Furthermore, it's about time the Conservative wing retook the party; the 'moderates' had their time and they got us destroyed. The American people aren't interested in milktoast.

2. Romney strikes me as a snake-oil salesman. He suffered a change of heart in too many key (for election) convictions too quickly for me to buy that they were all genuine.

3. Healthcare. Its' currently the Republicans biggest bat to beat Democrats with in 2012. Except for Romney, who would be hard-pressed to explain why when he did it it was okay, but when they do it, its' bad. He would sound needlessly partisan, whiny, and petty; which is precisely the opposite note to strike in the upcoming election cycles.
 
1. Any Republican that can't bring in the Tea Party movement loses in 2012. The numbers don't lie.
For the nomination, yes. However, when it comes to beyond that, there will need to be something else.
Furthermore, it's about time the Conservative wing retook the party; the 'moderates' had their time and they got us destroyed. The American people aren't interested in milktoast.
Ah, but what is really needed is someone who's primary platform is a small-government conservative :) . You can make an argument that this will put Romney to the side, but frankly, there are few others among this peers that lean in the same direction.
2. Romney strikes me as a snake-oil salesman. He suffered a change of heart in too many key (for election) convictions too quickly for me to buy that they were all genuine.
:shrug:

I'll be honest, and maybe I'm wrong, but I've always viewed governors and presidents as two separate entities. I have no problem with a instituting universal health-care in his/her state, the Constitution puts no limits there, but if asked whether the plan should be on a federal level and the politicians says yes, then they're obviously going overboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see Romney say this.
3. Healthcare. Its' currently the Republicans biggest bat to beat Democrats with in 2012. Except for Romney, who would be hard-pressed to explain why when he did it it was okay, but when they do it, its' bad. He would sound needlessly partisan, whiny, and petty; which is precisely the opposite note to strike in the upcoming election cycles.
Ok, good point. I've never really thought of it from that angle, which disappoints me. I figured that if he said that roles of governors and presidents are different (and made this distinction well), then he would gain (or at least his detractors would not be as effective) from this legislation.
 
For the nomination, yes. However, when it comes to beyond that, there will need to be something else.

for the nomination and the election. McCain was hurt by alot of things; but critically those area's that came out strong for Bush in 2004 didn't come out for him in 2008. In a three-way race, a Democrat picks up 36% of the vote, a Tea Party candidate 23%, and Republicans 18%; with 22% undecided. Now undoubtedly in an actual presidential election with a "non-tea-party" Republican ticket some of that portion would hold their nose and vote (R), but a significant enough portion will refuse to do so (angry at the Party for ignoring them, and refusing to give their credibility any more to the one-defacto-party system) that Obama will win hands down. How well do you think Bob Dole would have done if Ross Perot had taken another 12% of the vote in 1996? That's what 2012 will look like. The Conservative / Tea Party movement right now is the political base in this country with the energy and the momentum behind it; just as Obama's base did in 2008. Republicans can get on the train, or they can stay off it, but it's the only train leaving the station.

Ah, but what is really needed is someone who's primary platform is a small-government conservative :) . You can make an argument that this will put Romney to the side, but frankly, there are few others among this peers that lean in the same direction.

I can only think offhand of one national-level Republican with solid Tea Party credentials who can claim to be running on a small-government platform. Romney isn't that candidate. Huckabee is a big-government conservative of the style of Bush (that we neither want nor need), McCain is no longer an option, and Ron Paul is a little too far off the reservation to ever pull the Party people in.

I'll be honest, and maybe I'm wrong, but I've always viewed governors and presidents as two separate entities.

see, I've always thought that way about Congressional careers and the Presidency. Legislation is all about compromise. But Governing? that's an apples-to-apples Executive comparison. That's why (all other things being equal) the American people prefer to elect Governors over Senators; the feeling that they have "experience" being "the guy in charge".

I have no problem with a instituting universal health-care in his/her state, the Constitution puts no limits there, but if asked whether the plan should be on a federal level and the politicians says yes, then they're obviously going overboard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see Romney say this.

he hasn't but it's immaterial. The fact that he thinks government performing this sort of thing even at the state level means he doesn't share the core free-market beliefs of the conservative wing of the party.

also, i find it difficult to believe that the Tea Party folks are going to be all that particularly interested in the "nuance" of his situation. It strikes me as more of the "smells like a rat, dump it overboard" persuasion.

Ok, good point. I've never really thought of it from that angle, which disappoints me. I figured that if he said that roles of governors and presidents are different (and made this distinction well), then he would gain (or at least his detractors would not be as effective) from this legislation.

I could see him gaining a very few (the David Brooks and other "moderate" conservatives who would be too uncomfortable with someone who actually believes all that stuff about small government and free markets). But I could see him gaining enough to make up for the massive numbers he would lose on the right. :shrug:
 
***** Just to focus on some projected numbers here : On another thread I commented that those focusing on either Right to Life and/or 2nd Amendment made up about 10% of the National Electorate and perhaps 1/3 of those normally expected to vote in a GOP Primary. I was agreed with on this almost immediatly by someone here.

**** I'll add that probably those comprising these Tea Part gatherings probably have a slight (60%) majority from the earlier 10% grouping.

**** Are they important . In raw numbers & pivotal terms YES - but in order to win a General Election a Republican must crack some Blue States somewhere. More importantly California stays Blue barring something really overwhelming happening.

**** I started another thread yesterday pointing out that even IF Obama gets edged out by a Republican in 2012 it won't be by much in the Electoral Count and at age 55 in 2016 he just might go for it again. This is the edge the opposition has and it won't change for simple demographic reasons. No way a Republican gets well over 300 Electoral Votes in 2012. I suspect Karl Rove would agree here.
 
Romney is one of those guys of a type that highly partisan liberals LOVE to say, "oh, if only they had run HIM, I could have voted Republican."

Then, of course, if the Republicans actually end up running "him," there's suddenly a litany of reasons why they can't vote for him "now," because he "changed," yadda yadda . . . as there were a snowball's chance in Hell they were ever going to vote Republican, whomever they ran.
 
In all honesty...Mitt is a Nazi...pure and simple. That is strictly my personal opinion based on the information I have been given...which as we all know information can be sporadic and not 100% clear, but what I have heard of his policies he is a Nazi Reformist of the Republic Party and I don't vote Republican at all but I as soon have McCain then Romney.

You obviously have no idea what a Nazi even is. Please read a book or two on the subject... rise and fall of the third reich is a good place to start.
 
Back
Top Bottom