That's fine, but your party has made it clear that its official position on the issue is discrimination. That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm probably voting Gary Johnson anyway. The only things I'm really adamant about are fiscal responsibility and getting the economy back on track. Obama simply hasn't done it even by his own admission and if Romney somehow squeaks it out in a couple of months I think we'll be on a better track than what we've seen so far from BHO.
Grizalltheway wrote:
That's fine, but your party has made it clear that its official position on the issue is discrimination. That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm probably voting Gary Johnson anyway. The only things I'm really adamant about are fiscal responsibility and getting the economy back on track. Obama simply hasn't done it even by his own admission and if Romney somehow squeaks it out in a couple of months I think we'll be on a better track than what we've seen so far from BHO.
Grizalltheway wrote:
That's fine, but your party has made it clear that its official position on the issue is discrimination. That's all I'm trying to get across.
I'm probably voting Gary Johnson anyway. The only things I'm really adamant about are fiscal responsibility and getting the economy back on track. Obama simply hasn't done it even by his own admission and if Romney somehow squeaks it out in a couple of months I think we'll be on a better track than what we've seen so far from BHO.
Marylnad is going blue regardless of who I vote for, so me too. I wrote in Ron Paul last time around. Didn't really realize he was batshit crazy on foreign policy back then.
"Elaine, you're from Baltimore, right?"
"Yes, well, Towson actually."
LeadBolt wrote:
Well that depends on your definition...
how so?
Interview with Roll Call by former President Bill Clinton:
January 21, 1998
Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out – what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what is. But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just –
Q: Was it in any way sexual?
A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.
LeadBolt wrote:
Well that depends on your definition...
how so?
Or Conversely:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
I don't care about the rest of the sh1t I just want a financially strong and physically secure country.
I'm not activist for the homos to marry but I'm not against them. I really don't care. When it comes to silly sh1t that I like to do, that is all I ask of my government: we don't care what you do as long as you don't fvck anybody else up doing it. BUT... if you want the gummint out of your bedroom and your body, FINE. But don't in the same breath demand that what goes on in your bedroom be subsidized by the gummint. It works both ways.
As for killing unborn babies I am comfortable with Roe v Wade, although I would like to see things like selecting for gender and aborting the undesirable gender be made illegal. That's just freaking abominable. In fact, I think a case on gender selection abortion in front of the SCOTUS would go a long way towards clarifying the viability section of the Roe v Wade decision.
Let's see... what are the other social conservative issues... hmm. Think that about covers it.
Oh- get rid of hate crimes. Silly.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Every Republican since Roe V Wade has been outspokenly pro life, but abortion has remained legal (and subsidized in many cases) under their Presidencies.
Do you really think that we can go back to abortion being illegal without some very nasty political consequences? There are a lot of conservative women out there who vote GOP, and would probably abandon the party if there was truly a threat to legal abortion. I know several pro choice women who vote conservative without much worrying about consequences to the legality of abortion, because any truly logical analysis would suggest that we just can't go back. The same goes for the homos. No matter what any politician believes or wants to do, they are not going back in the closet.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
CID1990 wrote:I don't care about the rest of the sh1t I just want a financially strong and physically secure country.
I'm not activist for the homos to marry but I'm not against them. I really don't care. When it comes to silly sh1t that I like to do, that is all I ask of my government: we don't care what you do as long as you don't fvck anybody else up doing it. BUT... if you want the gummint out of your bedroom and your body, FINE. But don't in the same breath demand that what goes on in your bedroom be subsidized by the gummint. It works both ways.
As for killing unborn babies I am comfortable with Roe v Wade, although I would like to see things like selecting for gender and aborting the undesirable gender be made illegal. That's just freaking abominable. In fact, I think a case on gender selection abortion in front of the SCOTUS would go a long way towards clarifying the viability section of the Roe v Wade decision.
Let's see... what are the other social conservative issues... hmm. Think that about covers it.
Oh- get rid of hate crimes. Silly.
So you're saying that Romney will be the first Republican in over 100 years (if elected) to leave office with a smaller government than he inherited...
So he's the "one" to actually implement the age old talking point "smaller Government"
He's the one guy in the last 100 plus years who will actually do what he claims he'll do..?
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
CID1990 wrote:I don't care about the rest of the sh1t I just want a financially strong and physically secure country.
I'm not activist for the homos to marry but I'm not against them. I really don't care. When it comes to silly sh1t that I like to do, that is all I ask of my government: we don't care what you do as long as you don't fvck anybody else up doing it. BUT... if you want the gummint out of your bedroom and your body, FINE. But don't in the same breath demand that what goes on in your bedroom be subsidized by the gummint. It works both ways.
As for killing unborn babies I am comfortable with Roe v Wade, although I would like to see things like selecting for gender and aborting the undesirable gender be made illegal. That's just freaking abominable. In fact, I think a case on gender selection abortion in front of the SCOTUS would go a long way towards clarifying the viability section of the Roe v Wade decision.
Let's see... what are the other social conservative issues... hmm. Think that about covers it.
Oh- get rid of hate crimes. Silly.
So you're saying that Romney will be the first Republican in over 100 years (if elected) to leave office with a smaller government than he inherited...
So he's the "one" to actually implement the age old talking point "smaller Government"
He's the one guy in the last 100 plus years who will actually do what he claims he'll do..?
"The One" has already been used, you are blatantly infringing on that trademark.
But to your point….I think he could use Obamanomics and claim he reduced it. He would just say that, normally it would grow by 50% and just increase it by 40% and claim he cut it by 10%.
-Go Griz!
-Class of '97
-Thank you to all our Veterans.
CID1990 wrote:I don't care about the rest of the sh1t I just want a financially strong and physically secure country.
I'm not activist for the homos to marry but I'm not against them. I really don't care. When it comes to silly sh1t that I like to do, that is all I ask of my government: we don't care what you do as long as you don't fvck anybody else up doing it. BUT... if you want the gummint out of your bedroom and your body, FINE. But don't in the same breath demand that what goes on in your bedroom be subsidized by the gummint. It works both ways.
As for killing unborn babies I am comfortable with Roe v Wade, although I would like to see things like selecting for gender and aborting the undesirable gender be made illegal. That's just freaking abominable. In fact, I think a case on gender selection abortion in front of the SCOTUS would go a long way towards clarifying the viability section of the Roe v Wade decision.
Let's see... what are the other social conservative issues... hmm. Think that about covers it.
Oh- get rid of hate crimes. Silly.
So you're saying that Romney will be the first Republican in over 100 years (if elected) to leave office with a smaller government than he inherited...
So he's the "one" to actually implement the age old talking point "smaller Government"
He's the one guy in the last 100 plus years who will actually do what he claims he'll do..?
No, of course not, and I'm not saying that. I am saying that regardless of where Romney (or anybody else for that matter) stands on social issues, there is little he can do to put abortion back in the box.
Will he be a big spending Republican? His history seems to indicate yes, but there is a particular onus on the next President to start trimming the fat and bringing us back into the green. His VP choice is at least a good faith one that suggests he will at least try. The Obamites still believe that more stimulus is the answer. That is reason enough alone to vote the guy out of office.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
There is considerable confusion surrounding President Obama’s record on spending, debt, and deficits. Some point to the slow growth rate of federal spending under the president and use it to argue that he “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.” At the same time, some on the right argue that with respect to spending and debt the president is an aberration, an anomaly, a radical departure from the tradition of post-war American presidential stewardship. Both views are wrong. In reality, the president has been very bad on spending, debt, and deficits, but he has not been radically different than previous presidents.
There is considerable confusion surrounding President Obama’s record on spending, debt, and deficits. Some point to the slow growth rate of federal spending under the president and use it to argue that he “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.” At the same time, some on the right argue that with respect to spending and debt the president is an aberration, an anomaly, a radical departure from the tradition of post-war American presidential stewardship. Both views are wrong. In reality, the president has been very bad on spending, debt, and deficits, but he has not been radically different than previous presidents.
Good find. I figured there would be some legitimate push back. But in regards to Obama being a radical spender, from your article:
So is Mr. Obama’s performance on spending quite bad? Yes. But a difference in kind rather than in degree? Over his four fiscal years as president the average outlays-to-GDP ratio is 24.4 percent. During the Reagan years the average was 22.4 percent. Given the Great Recession, this two percentage point difference, though deceivingly very large, isn’t enough to claim that President Obama represents a radical departure from post-war presidents with respect to spending.
And before we get down the yeah, but Reagan had a donk congress:
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
89Hen wrote:
Show me one Liberal who doesn't use lame talking points...
War on Obesity - would save the country trillions of dollars in health care costs and stimulate other industries.
War on SUV's - we're already seeing the environmental and economic (auto industry strength) impact of this war we already won.
War on Religion - There is no greater threat to our liberty and freedoms than religion - and you know it. It always needs to be kept in check.
War on Tobacco - See #1.We already won. Will hundreds of thousands of lives, several in your family, and trillions in health care costs.
War on Nuclear Energy - We have no plan for the waste. Until then, the risk is too high and we'll be saddling our children with dealing with it.
D1B wrote:War on Nuclear Energy - We have no plan for the waste. Until then, the risk is too high and we'll be saddling our children with dealing with it.
If we can go to the moon in 10 years, why can we solve the nuclear waste issue in 10 years. There is no push because of the fear-mongers.
War on freedom
War on rewards, keep what you earn
War on awards, everyone wins at every game
D1B wrote:War on Nuclear Energy - We have no plan for the waste. Until then, the risk is too high and we'll be saddling our children with dealing with it.
If we can go to the moon in 10 years, why can we solve the nuclear waste issue in 10 years. There is no push because of the fear-mongers.
War on freedom - conks want corporations and religion to control all thought and action.
War on rewards, keep what you earn - Middle class is sick of funding corporate welfare, bailing out banks, and funding capitalist wars.
War on awards, everyone wins at every game - you ran out of gas..... Duh, let's see...rewards....uhhhhhhh....awards!!!.....yay me!!!
Gil Dobie wrote:
If we can go to the moon in 10 years, why can we solve the nuclear waste issue in 10 years. There is no push because of the fear-mongers.
War on freedom - conks want corporations and religion to control all thought and action.
War on rewards, keep what you earn - Middle class is sick of funding corporate welfare, bailing out banks, and funding capitalist wars.
War on awards, everyone wins at every game - you ran out of gas..... Duh, let's see...rewards....uhhhhhhh....awards!!!.....yay me!!!
Sorry my limit for your bullcrap has expired for the day.
Keep em coming....
D1B wrote:War on Nuclear Energy - We have no plan for the waste. Until then, the risk is too high and we'll be saddling our children with dealing with it.
So it's not ok to saddle our children with dealing with nuclear waste but it is ok to saddle them with paying for all of the things that we want today but can't afford like healthcare, defined benefit pension plans, etc.?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
Duh, let's see...rewards....uhhhhhhh....awards!!!.....yay me!!!
