POLITICS - Romney

Comal Forge · Post by **Comal Forge** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:01 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/23/ ... index.html

Looks like the Dem liberals are most worried about Romney. Note the scathing editorial.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:50 am

I have no problems with Romney's religion, and I do think he looks and sounds very Presidential. I would certainly vote for him against any of the Dem's currently seeking the office. That being said, due to his flip-flops, he is not my first choice. Then again, despite his flip-flops, he is not my last choice either!

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:08 am

Just another politician, no better or worse than the others. They are all pretty crappy in my opinion.

oregon73 · Post by **oregon73** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:27 am

El Mac wrote:Just another politician, no better or worse than the others. They are all pretty crappy in my opinion.

Yep. That definitely sums it up, for me.

Rob

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:36 am

The religious beliefs of the guy in office now have set stem cell research back 6 years or more. People will die or become disabled due to his religious beliefs. We don't need another one like him--or maybe worse.

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:23 am

I like my waffles with butter and maple syrup on a plate - not in office!

Oh yeah, and "Look at me! I'm a life long hunter!" knocked him completely out as far as I'm concerned.

Dastook · Post by **Dastook** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:39 am

Junior wrote:The religious beliefs of the guy in office now have set stem cell research back 6 years or more. People will die or become disabled due to his religious beliefs. We don't need another one like him--or maybe worse.

Sorry to open up a keg of worms, but I canâ€™t help it. Please no one take offense to this post as it is directed at the main stream media and itâ€™s efforts to dumb down America and not to offend anyone personally.
First there are basically three kinds of stem cell research going on.
1- Embryonic Stem cell research.
2- General stem cell research.
3- Adult self stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research is the act of harvesting aborted embryos to extract stem cells for research. To date there has been no notable success of any cures using this method. This is simply a hot button issue the left and the media uses to promote there hidden agenda for an argument for abortion. Everyone thinks this administration has tried to make laws to stop this research when in fact they have not. The only thing that they have done is attempt to stop tax dollar federal funding for it. It is and will continue to be done with private funding evan though there has been â€œnoâ€

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:40 am

Not religious beliefs - one of God's COMMANDMENTS

w30wcf

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:09 am

As far as Romney is concerned, I get the immediate feeling that he is just a slick salesman, that he is not genuine. That comes from being confronted by many of his type over the years. A gut instinct that he seems to prove everytime he speaks.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:19 am

My problem with Romney has nothing to do with his religion...

ROMNEY IS VERY ANTI-GUN...!

He's all for registrations, restrictions, and outright bans. Just because it's "only" against the black plastic guns with things that stick out, does NOT negate the danger.

If Romney is nominated as the usual RINO candidate - I WILL vote for the Democrat, Hiliary or otherwise. At least a few Republicans in Congress will dig in their heels somewhat and fight Democrat president's schemes, but they don't have enough spine to oppose 'one of their own' - Romney would have us in a socialist police-state FASTER than the Democrats, therefore.

Paul, or Huckabee, or I vote Democrat. Sorry to be a grouch...

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:20 am

Junior wrote:The religious beliefs of the guy in office now have set stem cell research back 6 years or more. People will die or become disabled due to his religious beliefs.

That's a flat out lie. There's currently plenty of placebo (sp?)/infant blood/infant spinal fluid/etc. in the mix to take care of all current research and there is a new synthetic placebo (sp?) that will take the place of natural placebo (sp?).

As for those running for President, I will vote for the Republican candidate. Anything would be better than Hillary.

spaceman spiff · Post by **spaceman spiff** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:28 am

No problem with his religion here. I can't say I was much impressed with his
disingenuous remarks of being a lifelong hunter. He seems too willing to say anything honestly or not to get elected.

BTW, Merry Christmas All !!!!!!!!!

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:13 pm

AJMD429 wrote:If Romney is nominated as the usual RINO candidate - I WILL vote for the Democrat, Hiliary or otherwise. At least a few Republicans in Congress will dig in their heels somewhat and fight Democrat president's schemes, but they don't have enough spine to oppose 'one of their own' - Romney would have us in a socialist police-state FASTER than the Democrats, therefore.

Sad but true.

Comal Forge · Post by **Comal Forge** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:14 pm

Well, I don't like any of them but I like Huckabee the most so far on issues and he doesn't seem to flip-flop much (yet...). Don't know enough about Paul to be able to voice an opinion.

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:57 pm

24thMICH · Post by **24thMICH** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:34 pm

Well, I for one will give Junior the benefit of the doubt; that he was well-intended but misinformed.

Working in a university, I can tell you there are two types of graduate student research funding: corporate and federal. Corporate grants are readily given for research that shows any promise of produciing something potentially profitable, especially by the medical and pharmaceudical industries, but also in virtually every field of engineering that's out there.

Federal grant money is usually gone after when the research essentially has nowhere to go. A lot of grad students have to do various research projects that are more or less academic exercises designed to teach them how to do research. Corporations won't pay for them because the research doesn't promise to yield any tangible results. The Feds pay for this research because they see it as part of the educational process.

There's a lot of corporate money behind adult stem cell research, mainly because it's the only type of stem cell research that's produced any tangible medical results (see http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm). There's no corporate money behind embryonic stem cell research, although there had been in the past, because embryonic stem cell research has proven to be a big turkey. This hasn't been good news for those research facilities that put all their efforts into embryonic stem cell research. They're badly hurting for funds, now that the big corporations have backed away.

Naturally enough, they've tried to get Federal funding to keep their enterprises from going bankrupt. They've played the media like a Stradavarius violin about it, and the pro-aborts have been eager to climb aboard because embryonic stem cell research furthers their agenda and also "ennobles" it to a certain degree (i.e. "we're not just killing babies, we're saving lives!").

Follow the money. The embryonic stem cell research facilities want to stay open. Planned Parenthood wants more justification. Bush said "no" to Federal funding. It's still perfectly legal, however. Any corporation or private individual who wants to fund it or engage in it can still do so, just on their own dime, not the taxpayers.

The embryonic stem cell research facilities, Planned Parenthood and the pro-aborts therefore aren't happy with Bush's refusal of taxpayer funding. They deal with it by calling Bush a "heartless bastard who's letting the sick die untreated."

It fits the playbook.

Make sense, Junior?

.

GANJIRO · Post by **GANJIRO** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:49 pm

Life as a precious gift from God is sacred. Godâ€™s law to Moses protected the life of an unborn baby against abortion, for if in a fracas between men a pregnant woman suffered an accident fatal to her or the child, the guilty party would pay with his life '"soul for a soul".

â€œAnd in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow". Exodus 21:22-25

The fruitage of the womb is a blessing of GOD. This blessing this gift should be treated with utmost respect.
"Look! Sons are an inheritance from GOD;
The fruitage of the belly is a reward". Psalms 127:3

No, we are not under Mosiac Law but the principles still apply, GOD's righteous standards do not change.

At the moment of conception the fertilized egg is genetically unique a living individual even though not fully developed. Aren't you glad your mother and your wife's mother viewed life as a precious gift from GOD and not something to be coldly killed and just flushed down the toilet or dissected for science? Man has no right to decide at what day of pregnancy the baby gains his/her right to life, this is a GOD given right from moment of conception.

Dastook · Post by **Dastook** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:13 pm

Idahoser and Junior, you are so uninformed it should be embarrassing for you. Please read the posts written above by myself and 24Mich. Be careful, you might just learn something.

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:35 pm

Most of you guys listen to too many right wing spin doctors. Almost all embryonic stem cells get thrown in the trash when they could help end several major diseases.

cubrock · Post by **cubrock** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:44 pm

Dastook wrote:Idahoser and Junior, you are so uninformed it should be embarrassing for you. Please read the posts written above by myself and 24Mich. Be careful, you might just learn something.

I think you misunderstood Idahoser's post. It looked like satire to me.

24thMICH · Post by **24thMICH** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:01 pm

Junior,

You're making the assertion that embryonic stem cells have some substantiated research behind them.

Can you cite your sources and the actual breakthroughs that have been accomplished with embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells?

Again, the issue isn't legality vs. illegality. It's Federal funding vs. corporate funding.

Why aren't private corporations putting big dollars into embryonic stem cell research when it's still perfectly legal?

.

Dastook · Post by **Dastook** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:09 pm

cubrock wrote:
Dastook wrote:Idahoser and Junior, you are so uninformed it should be embarrassing for you. Please read the posts written above by myself and 24Mich. Be careful, you might just learn something.

I think you misunderstood Idahoser's post. It looked like satire to me.

Sorry, I can be a bit thick headded

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:41 pm

I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for Romney just to get the ball rolling for a decent revolution in this country to get it back in line with the Constitution.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:18 pm

DDude wrote:I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for Romney just to get the ball rolling for a decent revolution in this country to get it back in line with the Constitution.

Another good point dude!

bogie

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:26 pm

Stem cell research? I can think of more important issues.

Like our government focusing on winning a war instead of winning a "clean-up". A government that will get our soldiers back home in a timely manner. A government that will let God back into the picture like our founding fathers intended. A government that will stop allowing the minority to rule this country.

"These are a few of my favorite things..."

Humbly,
bogie

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:28 pm

Guys, none of that matters.

Here's the deal. If you believe the 2nd amendment under writes and garranties all the rest then the #1 concern that overrides everything coming up in our political future as gun owners is who will appoint the next Supreme Court judges. This is because the laws that congress passes and the pres signs will eventually be filtered through the Supreme Court. Stevens is 87 and Ginsburg is 74. The next president will appoint their successors. The dems will appoint liberals to appease their base and the Repuds will appoint conservative to appease their base. It' that simple.

I really do like Ron Paulâ€™s integrity and his position on the 2nd amend. and I think Huck would be a great pres. but Iâ€™m not sure they are elect-able. If I have to I will hold my nose and vote for Rudy or Mitt Romney and immediately come home and take a shower and get drunk.

keep your eye on the prize.

Junior,
You call it spin but you never back it up with stats. Junior, old buddy, that makes you look really bad.

Now junior, don't go thinking I don't like you. I really do. You and I are much alike coming from the blue collar south and all. You and I come from the John F. Kennedy era when the Demacratic party was truly for the working man. Junior, it aint like that anymore. The radical left has stolen our party. You reimnd me of several of my friends here. Hard working blue collar union folks that just want to get ahead a bit. Some still believe. Some now realize they have been sold out.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:32 pm

"If I have to I will hold my nose and vote for Rudy or Mitt Romney and immediately come home and take a shower and get drunk."

bogie

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:48 pm

24thMICH wrote:Junior,

You're making the assertion that embryonic stem cells have some substantiated research behind them.

Can you cite your sources and the actual breakthroughs that have been accomplished with embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells?

Again, the issue isn't legality vs. illegality. It's Federal funding vs. corporate funding.

Why aren't private corporations putting big dollars into embryonic stem cell research when it's still perfectly legal?

.

I know two facts: (1) my granddaughter has juvenile diabetes and I'd much like to see a cure before it kills her or she has my great-grandchild and passes on the gene; (2) because of #1, I've read many newspaper and magazine articles and watched many TV news shows wherein scientists lament the fact that there's not enough gene lines in the cells they must use for research. Without exception, they blamed GWB for that lack of gene lines. I blame GWB's religious beliefs.

Steve, alas the left wing fringe is in the Democratic party. Just like the right wing fringe is in the Republican party. I consider myself an Earl K. Long Democrat.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:50 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:The dems will appoint liberals to appease their base and the Repuds will appoint conservative to appease their base. It' that simple.

That might be true for Romney...maybe. But it won't be true for Rudy. Both are extremely social liberals. Their records spell it out. Talk is cheap as hell.

Deeds, not words, count.

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:15 pm

A vote for any politician who will give you (or your favorite cause) federal assistance based upon "issues" instead of voting for the man or woman who will obey, adhere and work within the limits as prescribed by the Constitution... is a wasted vote.

The Constitution states clearly, in simple to understand language, what the federal government can do. If the Constitution is "silent", then as the 10th Amendment states, it is to be given to the states to decide individually. All these "societal issues" are the responsibility of the seperate states, not the federal government. The fact that our society continues to turn to the federal government for answers/action is the reason this country is gradually dying as the federal government grows and strangles/enslaves it's citizens.

Why do 2A supporters cry about the federal government overstepping their bounds when it comes to ridding the Constitution of the 2A, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the 10th Amendment is ignored? Are not the rest of the Bill of Rights just as important as the 2A? We were given ten, not just one. They're all important and vital to our freedom and liberty.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:18 pm

El Mac wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:The dems will appoint liberals to appease their base and the Repuds will appoint conservative to appease their base. It' that simple.
That might be true for Romney...maybe. But it won't be true for Rudy. Both are extremely social liberals. Their records spell it out. Talk is cheap as hell.

Deeds, not words, count.

You missed the point. The party will appoint the next judges, not the pres. They will have to listen to their base in order to get the nomination through. That's how it works. Always has and always will.

Junior wrote:
Steve, alas the left wing fringe is in the Democratic party. Just like the right wing fringe is in the Republican party. I consider myself an Earl K. Long Democrat.

Junior, that's true but the difference is the left wing rules the DNC. The right ring doesn't rule the RNC. If they did there wouldnt be a Rudy or Rommney running.

24thMICH · Post by **24thMICH** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:57 pm

Junior,

I share your concern for your granddaughter. Last year in June I had to open the door on my dead sister-in-law after many episodes where my son and I found her with blood sugars lower than 30. One time it had so low the EMS had it up to 15 after a tube of glucophage. She was 44 years old and had contracted juvenile-onset diabetes at age 8. My brother-in-law, about 35, also has had it since the age of 10.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the "scientists" and magazine articles you read were pushing a political and not a scientific agenda. I want a cure to this evil disease as much as you do, but it's very most likely not going to come out of embryonic stem cell research. From what I understand, juvenile-onset diabetes is a peculiar type of auto-immune disorder, not that far off from rheumatoid arthritis, where the body misidentifies a part of itself as a foreign protein and then attacks itself.

From what I understand, the breakthrough in juvenile-onset diabetes will come from the field of neuroimmunology, not gene therapy, at least not in our or our childrens' lifetimes.

Just for the record, I grew up a JFK-Hubert Humphrey Democrat who became disillusioned with the Democrat Party while I was living in Chicago and got to see the Daly-Burns Democrat machine close up. I saw it again when I moved back to Detroit and watched Coleman Young flush that once beautiful city down the toilet, and then left the Democrat Party for good after being totally disillusioned with Jimmy Carter and then voting for Mondale out of loyalty and watching everything Democrat go downhill from there. My Dad was a loyal Union man who worked for Ford's all his life.

I used to believe it was the Republicans who were "greedy corrupt corporate fat cats out to screw the average guy," so I was shocked when I first discovered that the Democrats were far more skillful at political demagogury than the relatively inept Republicans at that game. Maybe when I discovered that JFK didn't actually write "PT-109" but that it was written by a publicitist ghost-writer paid for by Ol' Joe Kennedy, who then had his people buy up large quantities of the book across the country to make it a "NY Times best seller" to give Jack the political attention Joe had first wanted for his first son. Maybe it was when I discovered that the Civil Rights Act had far more Republicans than Democrats voting for it, and that LBJ is reported to have said off the cuff "when I sign that, I'll have the n*****s voting Democrat for the next 100 years." Maybe it's when I discovered that close to 4 trillion dollars was spent on the War on Poverty and the overall rate of poverty in this country hasn't budged, but the rate of illiteracy, out of wedlock births and divorce in both the white and throughout many minority commmunities has skyrocketed that did it for me. But what does it for me the most is when I hear Dems like Chuck Shumer, Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and John Conyers spin the whole issue of gun control, that's where I know I've left the Democrat Party pretty much for good. At least we have a pro-Second Amendment Democrat congressional representative up here. I feel fine voting for him. But that's pretty much it.

You want a Canadian lady governor? You can have her!

.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:07 pm

Junior wrong
Dastook correct
My reading on stem cell research leads me to beleave Embrionic to be the hardest to work with. Not an expert though.
Mis information is to be expected when politicans deal with science or human freedoms

Dave

BruceB · Post by **BruceB** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:10 pm

"Junior

I know two facts: (1) my granddaughter has juvenile diabetes and I'd much like to see a cure before it kills her or she has my great-grandchild and passes on the gene;

Since you believe in abortion, maybe she should have been aborted so as not to pass on that gene. Murdering children is still murdering children no matter which party is in power. You may point out that Roe v Wade is a Scotus decision, but then again so was Dredd Scott. Neither of them are/were right.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:15 pm

I don't trust anyone who uses their religion like something they pulled out of a tool-box.

Choosing a man who can demonstrate a solid moral foundation and a connection to commonly held beliefs is essential in selecting a leader of a free people.

Romney is not to blame for his faith becoming an issue. That is a despicable slander created by the liberal media.

That said, it is my belief that Romney is not one iota different than Giuliani, Clinton or Edwards. All fakes. All liars.

McCain, Biden, Dodd, and Thompson are all wannnabes following what think is a career path.

The only candidates worth voting for on either side are Obama and Paul.

JMO

Slick13 · Post by **Slick13** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:01 pm

El Mac wrote:Just another politician, no better or worse than the others. They are all pretty crappy in my opinion.

Yep. I have no idea how anyone can get excited about the current crop of presidential canidates. There's not a one that I want to vote for.

As for Romney, someone mentioned that he reminds them of a car salesman... slick and willing to say whatever to cut a deal. That's the impression I've always had of him too. Throw his Mormonism on top of that (I spent the first 20 years of my life in the Mormon church and have a low opinion of it) I couldn't vote for him.

~Michael

Junior · Post by **Junior** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:06 pm

BruceB wrote:Since you believe in abortion, maybe she should have been aborted so as not to pass on that gene.

Consider this an open invitation to say that to my face. That was a low down, dirty, mean, cruel, awful comment. Do you call yourself a Christian?

I don't like abortion as birth control. But I also don't like people who are against abortion for any reason. The life or health of a pregnant woman is more important than the life of her fetus.

Murdering children is still murdering children no matter which party is in power.

I agree 100%. But a fertilized egg is not a child.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:10 pm

O yea the candidates

Romney and jiuliani both bend with the latest direction of the breeze and are not talking like they have acted in the past. This is a poor indicator of their future direction.
Obama believes and wants a lot of things without spelling out means of getting there and they fall into the liberal agenda including gun control.
The liberals and the democratic party ARE NOT PRO SECOND PERIOD. That means they don't care about us-the bill of rights or any thing but control. There are exceptions in the dem pary, but they are hypocrites -won't make any difference -and should be in a different pary

We will not get an ideal candadate -ain't such a person

Some of the outspoken ones with some of what ya want won't make it. There is a lot of shaking out left to do an things will change as the process moves through different parts of the country.
As far as the hawkeye cauckeye goes for the repubs I predict Huck then Mitt then Fredie. When things move east jullie and Mitt will have some pull. By the time things move south it could all be different. Then ya got the west

It's still the lesser of two evils unless ya think Billary and Obaopra could cause a revolution

Dave
Dave

Eric M. · Post by **Eric M.** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:27 pm

I disagree with Junior on this one, but it seems to me that there is getting to be way too many personal attacks on someone if you don't agree with him.
Leverguns used to be a little better than this a while ago.

I sure can't call Bruce a good Christian after him saying to Junior that his Grandchild should have been aborted.
What a jerk.
You guys all should be ashamed of yourselfs.

I don't agree with you Junior on abortion, but may God Bless your Grandaughter, and I hope that they find a cure for her.

Come on over to HuntingNut Junior.
We need a token liberal over there.

Man oh man, what a bunch of jerks.

Eric

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:21 am

FWiedner wrote: ...The only candidates worth voting for on either side are Obama and Paul...

AAAAUUUGGGHHHHHH!

Sorry. Fit of "I live too near Chicago to rationally believe any chumbalone from Cook County is worth SHOOTING - much less voting for..."

But I have to agree.

"Dear G_d. Please let The People restore The Constitution. Uplift Dr. Paul. Amen."

jhrosier · Post by **jhrosier** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:45 am

Listen up folks,
Former Massachusetts Governor Romney is a 100% gun banner. He will say anything to get into office.

In Massachusetts we have an "approved" list that hanguns must be on to be sold by a dealer. Maximum of four private gun sales per year. No mail order of ammo, components, or magazines. "May issue" and resricted licencing for guns, target and hunting only in many towns. If the local chief of police doesn't feel like issuing a licence, that is the end of the discussion, there is no legal recourse. The AW Ban is alive and well in MA. BTW, firearms licences are now $100.

If you would like this sort of stuff to be the law of the land, vote for Mitt.

Jack

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:50 am

jhrosier wrote:Listen up folks,
Former Massachusetts Governor Romney is a 100% gun banner. He will say anything to get into office.

In Massachusetts we have an "approved" list that hanguns must be on to be sold by a dealer. Maximum of four private gun sales per year. No mail order of ammo, components, or magazines. "May issue" and resricted licencing for guns, target and hunting only in many towns. If the local chief of police doesn't feel like issuing a licence, that is the end of the discussion, there is no legal recourse. The AW Ban is alive and well in MA. BTW, firearms licences are now $100.

If you would like this sort of stuff to be the law of the land, vote for Mitt.

Jack

And Rudy is no different, really.

Pro Gun/Freedom East & Left Coast Politicians are few and far between.

Even the Manchurian Candidate has a (somewhat) better record on guns.

The ONLY non-socialist pro gun candidate is Paul... with Thompson being a close second.

DDude · Post by **DDude** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:24 am

I can't speak about the dems as I don't listen to them since they're a bunch of idiots (though I concede they are dangerous to our representative republic).

That leaves the Republicans. I listened to the debates and was shocked on the stance they all took (Dr. Paul being the exception) that they maintain that as POTUS, they have the right to bypass Congress in procurring a declaration of war against an "enemy" and can take it upon themselves to launch military action against another nation in the name of "protecting" Americans. When Romney said he'd consult with his attorneys I was aghast. What a fool. And the same for Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee and the others. Fools, each and every one of them since they all said the exact same thing.

As per the Constitution-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I'm tired of hearing candidates saying it's their responsibility to protect Americans. It's BS. The POTUS is responsible for defending the Constitution. I'll defend myself thank you very much. I can do it much more effectively since I'm with myself 24/7/365 and have a vested interest in protecting my hide. Government at no level is under no moral obligation to protect people. The courts have ruled that the police (government) are not obligated to protect citizens, thus the "Serve and Protect motto on just about every police cruiser should simply read "Serve" since they can't "Protect".

Only Dr. Paul provided the correct answer. The current POTUS did not procure a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. As such, our involvement in the Iraq fiasco is him (Bush) wiping his butt with the Constitution. And Congress was delinquent in their duty to provide a declaration of war. And now Bush and Company want to stomp into Iran and do the same thing. And people think this is good and morally right? Give me a *******' break.

Is it so difficult for Americans to understand that POTUS, as CIC, is responsible only for making sure that the military carries out the will of the people via the Congress and a formal declaration of war. POTUS does not have the Constitutional authority to just take it upon himself to use troops however he/she sees fit. And Congress can not abandon their responsibility and just give the POTUS a blanket o.k. to do so.

It's so unreal that it's almost funny if not for the seriousness of it all. What is really sad is so many people are just too lazy or complacent to actually read the Constitution and discover it's wonderful meaning and intent so well written and skillfully crafted by real Patriots who feared tyranny.

Bush is a tyrant. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, Hillary, O'Bama... all potential tyrants.

Dr. Paul is not the answer. We the People are the answer. But Dr. Paul could be the physician that we can elect to be the cure.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:43 am

Junior, you been drinking the water again? Didn't we warn you about that? Darn halucenigens anyway.

Man I gotta tell you I've never in my life seen the left so upset about someone as they are about GWB. Must be dong something right (er, correct I mean

) He's made some mistakes, but good grief, he's nowhere near as bad a Clinton, EITHER ONE!

I just wish that you'd drink bottled water, and stop watching CBS and CNN so much. I know, maybe the left could get Dan Rather to run.

Honestly though, I talk to liberals at work all the time about politics. Most of the time our talk is civil.

There are a few though that once you mention you still support Bush, they get like rabid dogs and start name calling and almost frothing at the mouth. Now THAT will surely convince me to vote for a liberal candidate.

24thMICH · Post by **24thMICH** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:17 am

Sorry to say, but the Dems have a history of stealing elections, going back to at least Ol' Joe Kennedy. Remember that Kennedy won the election by a hairsbreadth? Well that was accomplished by Ol' Joe playing games with the Democratic machine in Cook County. Nixon by all historical accounts probably won that one, had the tally in Cook County not been cooked. On a local level, the Dem machines have routinely "owned" certain areas and still do. That's one thing I learned living in Chicago for a while. In California Bob Dornon had his electoral victory stolen from him by a bunch of illegal aliens posing as regular US citizens. The Dems tried the same tactics in Florida in the 2000 election and got stopped. That totally fried their circuits, on top of the fact that they felt the need for revenge regarding Clinton's impeachment over his purgering himself regarding the BJ's he received in the Oval Office from Monica "Hoover" Lewinski. The Dem machine decided to go after Bush with a vengance and do anything and everything they could to paint the Republicans as being more corrupt than they were. With the mainstream press in their court (CNN, NYT, etc) and plenty of years to work on the public, they ended up doing a fairly decent job of it. Bush didn't help by mostly staying out of the fray on the assumption that it "wasn't presidential" to respond to his critics.

But that's why the Dems go rabid over Bush for the most part. Not that Bush hasn't stepped in it every now and again. But name me a president who hasn't.

.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:41 am

It's so unreal that it's almost funny if not for the seriousness of it all. What is really sad is so many people are just too lazy or complacent to actually read the Constitution and discover it's wonderful meaning and intent so well written and skillfully crafted by real Patriots who feared tyranny.

Our society has this past century become over-specialized. A hundred years ago, a person, without any education beyond high school, knew 95% of what he/she needed to know to function in society, earn a living, and provide for the family and/or raise children. NOW we have gone to the point that most people won't install a bathroom sink without involving a 'specialist' - a plumber, licensed (of course) by the government. We farm out the raising of our children to government-approved 'specialists,' and our food, etc.

The Constitution isn't hard to read. Anyone with a 12th grade education can read and understand it. We don't NEED a bunch of pointy-headed agenda-driven 'experts' telling us what phrases like "of the people" mean.

Sadly, I've friends who can't even change the oil in their own car (not "don't want to" but "CAN'T" - as in have no idea where it goes or how to do it...).

One of the reasons I like GUN OWNERS, RURAL FOLK, and of course the LEVERGUNNERS on this forum, is that they have a far wider horizon and view of the world than most of the urban 'niche' people I see every day. Thankfully, I live and work in a redneck, hilljack area, where even the city people are likely to have butchered a deer on occasion. [/quote]