Mitt Romney warns NRA against an 'unrestrained' second-term Obama

[neginfluence04]

I wish they would remove who was a republican and who was a democrat from the ballot. Maybe this way people wouldn't blindly vote just because they THINK they are republican or democrat. Maybe then and only then they moght actually do some ****ing home work and put some thought into making a conscious vote but that's only my .02

 

[Glocktogo]

I wish they would remove who was a republican and who was a democrat from the ballot. Maybe this way people wouldn't blindly vote just because they THINK they are republican or democrat. Maybe then and only then they might actually do some ****ing home work and put some thought into making a conscious vote but that's only my .02

Word!

 

[Werewolf]

Yeah. 2000-2006 were such great years for the US overall.

Yep...
Economic boom times really suck.

It wasn't until the dims took over the house in 2006 that the economy started going down hill.

Coincidence.

Doubtful.

 

[PistolPackin'Honey]

Staying home in November only helps re-elect the same. Romney may not be the ideal candidate, but I'd feel better with him in the White House, instead of the current occupant.

 

[Starbright]

I may be wrong but if Obama remains in office the United States will come under the World Order and be accountable to the UN. He will I also believe will abolish guns held by the general public in order for him to control the citizens of this country. And he will be virulent anti-christian. We ain't seen nothing yet as Reagan said.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I may be wrong but if Obama remains in office the United States will come under the World Order and be accountable to the UN. He will I also believe will abolish guns held by the general public in order for him to control the citizens of this country. And he will be virulent anti-christian. We ain't seen nothing yet as Reagan said.

Pretty sure that will happen faster with a GOP President plus a GOP Congress. Except for the anti-Christian part - they'll be "virulent" crusaders.

Just look at Oklahoma.

 

[Werewolf]

Pretty sure that will happen faster with a GOP President plus a GOP Congress. Just look at Oklahoma.

1st time for everything I guess.

Please elaborate and explain your statement above.

 

[Glocktogo]

1st time for everything I guess.

Please elaborate and explain your statement above.

I'm pretty sure he means that it's in our best interests to have a divided administration and legislative branch when it comes to controversial proposals. If they're fighting each other, we're a lot less likely to have bad legislation than if they're in lockstep, Republican majority or not.

 

[mugsy]

I wish they would remove who was a republican and who was a democrat from the ballot. Maybe this way people wouldn't blindly vote just because they THINK they are republican or democrat. Maybe then and only then they moght actually do some ****ing home work and put some thought into making a conscious vote but that's only my .02

That was how it started back in the early days of the Republic and it didn't even last beyond the Presidency of George Washington. People form political parties (or associations if you prefer) naturally to promote common interests. The goal is to craft a government, such as ours, that keeps power fragmented and segmented so that, except in extremis, no one is able to easily form an overwhelming coalition. It frustrates people but it also serves to protect Liberty.

 

[vvvvvvv]

1st time for everything I guess.

Please elaborate and explain your statement above.

Most of the arguments at the Capitol center not around principle, but around credit. Some prime recent examples are Obamacare (thank you, Heritage Foundation 15 years prior), the Patriot Act (doesn't matter who controls the legislative branch - renewal comes "sharply divided along party lines"), the current Republican House - including every "conservative" delegate from Oklahoma (and also both of our "conservatives" in the Senate) - voting overwhelmingly in favor of declaring your doorstep a "battlefield" for international law purposes in addition to military detainment without due process for the mere accusation that you may have some remote connection to "terrorism" (active or passive, financial or otherwise).

In Oklahoma, we have a Republican-controlled legislative and executive branch. We get to see fun things like pushes to further limit access to effective medication (pseudoephedrine) under the guise of "curbing meth", when the reality is that at least 95% imported according to OBNDD. The only things that putting pseudoephedrine (which does occur naturally, contrary to what that Michael Savage guy who supposedly has a Ph.D in nutrion claims constantly on his radio show) behind the counter accomplishes is opening a market for a much less effective product for those with legitimate allergy needs and inflating the black market for pseudoephedrine-containing medications. Or we get to see things like 2010's SQ755 because by golly if you're Muslim you should not have equal access to Oklahoma courts because you obviously must be a "terrorist" or are at least of a lesser class. Or we get to see massive financial irresponsibility like using 100% of the Rainy Day Fund, which is meant to be used to shore up accounts in the event that the bottom drops out of the oil/gas market that provides a large source of anticipated revenue, in order to increase a budget rather than make much needed cuts. Or we get to see things like further promotion of abstinence-only sexual education while we ironically have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Or we get to see things like further demonization of people who don't fit the Christian-heterosexual mold on the grounds that they allegedly can't provide a "safe and stable environment for children", while we ironically have one of the highest divorce and single-parent-on-welfare rates in the country. Or we get to see even more asinine laws relating to alcohol and other vices.

I'm not sure who really had Alzheimer's - Ronald Reagan or the GOP as a whole. Look at Reagan's support of terrorism around the world with American tax dollars. Look at Reagan's tripling of the national debt (and near-doubling when expressed as a percentage of GDP). Yet according to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and (depending on the day) Glenn Beck, Ronald Reagan is who we should look to for handling government finances and terrorists.

People who blindly buy into the polarized left-vs-right paradigm are one of the main reasons why we are where we are now in this country - point blank and simple.