The Mitt Romney Thread

[The_Dude 1,142]

#######, I typed out a nice response and it showed up when I hit post. Now it's gone. I'm inclined to think that there is some sort of conservative movement skullduggery afoot.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How dare you, you filthy liberal you!

[The_Dude 1,142]

How dare you, you filthy liberal you!

Ahh, so i've earned the proper spelling of the title back?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Godless Left

I like to say anything that P$es them off.

I hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a socialist. He said, "You're rich? Sell your stuff and give it to the poor." This is the polar opposite of capitalism, genius. Jesus would also would advocate spending time and "educating" those who have not received the "truth", not pissing them off and alienating them. Maybe if the more vocal christians didn't tend to be a-holes who seem to unaware of what the bible actually teaches the left wouldn't have a any firepower. The federal government was designed by the constitution to be neutral so that people in this country could be free to believe what they want without fear. Now we have to worry about people who believe the end of the world is coming being in charge of our nuclear stockpile. Religious preference in a personal matter, not a government matter. There's more to life than breathing exclusively through your mouth and listening to Nickelback.

Incidentally, I tend to fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, so I'm not some Obama follower. I'm not a democrat, but I find it totally impossible to be a republican.

Jesus was for charity, not government run programs. Charity isn't socialism. Nice try though.

Ah, now wait a sec. Are you separating Jesus and keeping Him out of policies? Aren't you being convenient there? What other teachings of Jesus do wish to exclude from the scope of government? And more importantly - when did Jesus say that people should not advocate social justice through government policy?

Edited October 12, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[HYENA 4]

Romney was the best candidate the GOP had last year. I am glad he didn't win the nomination. He could have swung PA and FL. Maybe even forced the Obama campaign into spending more than they planned to win NJ and MA.

Romney was the best candidate the GOP had..... until he opened his mouth. The man cannot debate. He is also as prone to verbal gaffs as Joe Biden. Furthermore, the religious right will NEVER embrace him.

The reason your comments are irrelevant is because it wouldn't matter who the GOP nominated (unless it was Lincoln Chaffey) you would still call them braindead for lack of a better response.

There were a couple good candidates and Fred was a good one. Destroyed Romney and Huckabee in the debates. Just ran a bad campaign.

Romney was the best candidate the GOP had last year. I am glad he didn't win the nomination. He could have swung PA and FL. Maybe even forced the Obama campaign into spending more than they planned to win NJ and MA.

Romney was the best candidate the GOP had..... until he opened his mouth. The man cannot debate. He is also as prone to verbal gaffs as Joe Biden. Furthermore, the religious right will NEVER embrace him.

The religious right pretty much has the Republican party by its balls. Which is why candidates like Sarah Palin actually have a chance at getting the nomination and why it will have a hard time regaining the presidency.

People have been burned by Bush as a candidate who won largly with the support of the religious right and are demanding more than just a conservative stance on moral issues. Of which the Republicans are still lacking substance (It has to be more than just cutting taxes for the rich and everything will be better).

More implied advice for the Republican party by the Godless left. Become more like democrats and you can win!! YEAH SURE!! 56 million voted against Obama. But you tend to leave that out.

Right is far more godless hands down; more evil cause they live under a facade but more heinous

democrats are no better. THey both sucK!

Edited October 12, 2009 by HYENA

[Peikko 1,575]

Does it matter? I thought that US politics was meant to be divorced from organised religion so where someone stands as regards religious belief is irrelevant to whether or not they will be a good public servant. There are many ethical issues involved in politics but ethics and belief in god are not interchangeable nor should they be.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Me ####### is way bigger than anyone's in this thread.

[scandal 951]

Me ####### is way bigger than anyone's in this thread.

Did you know that sheep (rams, actually) have enormouse penises? I mean, really really big ones. Almost as big as buffaloes. But not quite.

[Danno 1,228]

Me ####### is way bigger than anyone's in this thread.

Did you know that sheep (rams, actually) have enormouse penises? I mean, really really big ones. Almost as big as buffaloes. But not quite.

Have you ever seen one... or is this more "locker room talk"?

[웃 910]

Romney Endorses Toomey in Pennsylvania Senate Race

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pledges to work "very hard" toward Pat Toomey's election in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Tuesday endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter's GOP opponent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race, giving Pat Toomey the backing of one of the Republican Party's most influential members.

Romney, who ran unsuccessfully for his party's presidential nomination last year and is considered a top contender in 2012, announced his support for Toomey in Philadelphia.

Specter's seat is a prime target for Republicans, since the veteran and moderate lawmaker switched from the Republican to Democratic Party earlier in the year over fears that Toomey would trounce him in the primary.

Now Specter faces both Democratic and Republican challengers.

Calling him the "man for the job," Romney pledged in a fundraising e-mail to work "very hard" toward Toomey's election.

But Specter's not suffering from a dearth of high-profile support.

President Obama attended a Philadelphia fundraiser for Specter last month, calling on supporters to "fight" for Specter in the coming year.

[웃 910]

October 19, 2009

RELEASE: Governor Romney's address to AIPAC 2009

San Diego, Calif -- Governor Mitt Romney today delivered a speech to the AIPAC National Summit on America's relationship with Israel and its other allies. Following are excerpts from the speech:

On America's recent drift from Israel:

"In pursuit of a peace process, the United States today has exerted substantial pressure on Israel while putting almost no pressure on the Palestinians and the Arab world.

Consider how little we ask of the Arab world. Why is it that only Egypt and Jordan have peace agreements with Israel? What about Saudi Arabia? The Saudi government will not even sit in the same room as the Israelis, let alone normalize relations or work towards a realistic peace agreement. In 2007, at the height of the Olmert-Abbas peace track, the Saudis were demanding that more U.S. companies comply with their boycott of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to a lasting and realistic peace. As you know well, in 2005, for example, Israel handed over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. This generous, unilateral act was met in return with rockets fired into Israel, with a coup by Hamas in Gaza, and with two wars – one on the Lebanese border and another in Gaza.

Inexplicably, the United States now places the burden on Israel to make still more unilateral concessions."

On the United Nations:

"I will happily agree that the UN has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.

Time and time again, the UN has become a forum for invective against the Jewish state. We saw it in 1975, when the UN passed an anti-Semitic resolution that condemned Israel as racist. And we have seen it in just the last few weeks, when the UN gave a platform to a Holocaust-denier who has pledged over and over again that he will wipe out Israel. It was a grotesque moment and another stain on the reputation of the United Nations. And congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said to those members of the United Nations who stayed to listen to Mahmoud Achmadinejad—"Have you no shame!"

On our relationship with global allies:

"When we treat any ally in a desultory manner – and especially if we act in a way that causes them to question our reliability, our resolve, our commitment and staying power – then they as well as our other allies, all of whom are watching very closely, will turn to others for their security.

When Poland and the Czech Republic are humiliated by us, they lose confidence in America's support for them, and they may decide that they must incline more toward Russia.

If our friends in Latin America like Colombia become convinced that we are turning our back on them, they may feel compelled to become more accommodative to Hugo Chavez.

If Japan believes the United States is weakening its commitment in the Pacific, it may distance itself from America and draw closer to China.

When defenders of democracy and the rule of constitution and law in Honduras find that we have sided with their pro-Chavez illegal opposition, freedom fighters across the world, re-calculate their chances for success.

And if Arab nations believe that we will accommodate Iran's ambition to dominate the Middle East with nuclear weapons, they will move closer to that very nation.

Whenever or wherever America steps away from one of its friends and allies, or shrinks in the face of belligerent tyrants, those who are allied with us may understandably or inevitably step closer to our foes. The advance of human rights and the defense of liberty demand that America stands firm with its allies—all of them."

On Iran:

"At this late stage I would simply say that it is long past time for America to recognize the nature of the regime we are dealing with. The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: "the care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid."

Edited October 19, 2009 by Confucian

[웃 910]

Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets

by Mitt Romney

10/22/2009

The Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone well beyond the boundary of outrage -- beginning with his calculated desecration of history. When he denies the Holocaust, he could care less about history. His point is about the present and the future. His purpose is not merely to deny the Holocaust, but also to deny Israel. He is testing the waters. He wants to know who will object. And how they will register their objection.

That’s why it was so shocking last month when the United Nations gave a platform to a Holocaust-denier who has pledged over and over again that he will wipe out Israel. It was a grotesque moment and another stain on the reputation of the U.N. And congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said to those members of the United Nations who stayed to listen to Ahmadinejad -- "Have you no shame!”

I will happily agree that the U.N. has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.

The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. It is a repressive regime… an intractable enemy of liberty and human rights… the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and subversive war. The threat it poses to the world would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power.

Earlier this month, senior staff members of the U.N. nuclear agency concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb. We also learned of a previously secret, illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom.

A nuclear Iran would be a tipping point in the proliferation of nuclear regimes, and yet America still has not taken critical steps to immediately dissuade Iran from its nuclear folly.

At this late stage, I would simply say that it is long past time for America to recognize the nature of the regime we are dealing with. The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. We should stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: “The care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid.”

The President of the United States can employ his admiration and good will to actually accomplish something meaningful and real in Iran -- comprehensive, withering sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international support for the forces of freedom within Iran.The people of Iran represent a major source of strength. By and large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics; in fact, the regime’s effort to crush the uprising against it has only alienated the people of Iran. They fear economic stagnation and they hate political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontation with the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West.

And the military option must remain on the table -- and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately -- for reasons that are unfathomable to me -- our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?

I don’t pretend for a moment that the course of action to take with Iran is easy or obvious; there are costs to anything we do, but there are even greater costs if we do nothing at all. If we allow Iran under the rule of the mullahs to get a nuclear weapon, it will make the problems America faces today look like a walk in the park.

The clock is ticking, with no real progress to show for the precious time that has already lapsed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We're in a wholesale economic and geopolitical decline, the result of decades of economic mismanagement and military adventurism (most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan); and yet these politicians keep talking about starting yet another war?

Where do these bastards think they're going to get the money to pay for this, more importantly the people to fight it?

[웃 910]

We're in a wholesale economic and geopolitical decline, the result of decades of economic mismanagement and military adventurism (most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan); and yet these politicians keep talking about starting yet another war?

Where do these bastards think they're going to get the money to pay for this, more importantly the people to fight it?

Why do you hate our 45th president?

This equals staring another war? "The President of the United States can employ his admiration and good will to actually accomplish something meaningful and real in Iran -- comprehensive, withering sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international support for the forces of freedom within Iran."

[웃 910]

Romney: Obama fundraising distracting from Afghan decision

By Michael O'Brien - 11/02/09 09:46 AM ET

President Barack Obama's fundraising for Democrats has distracted him from making a decision on strategy for Afghanistan, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ® suggested Monday.

Romney, a 2008 presidential candidate and possible 2012 foe for Obama, hit the administration for a perceived slowness in making up its mind about sending 40,000 new troops to Afghanistan, as was recommended by the top U.S. commander in the region, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Romney asserted that the president had been more focused on 30-some fundraisers in the past four months than digesting McChrystal's recommendations, which Obama has reportedly had for the same time span.

"With men and women dying in U.S. uniforms, the president ought to be focusing on getting them home and getting them home safely and stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan rather than reelecting his friends," Romney said during an appearance this morning on CBS News.

The Massachusetts Republican also criticized Obama for not being more careful in monitoring Afghanistan's election, where incumbent President Hamid Karzai declared victory in a runoff election Monday after his principal challenger withdrew from the race, citing concerns over corruption and fraud.

"It's very difficult in a counterinsurgency not to have a strong government, and one that is backed by the people," Romney said. "You really have to ask why, with all this at stake, this administration didn't take a more careful role in making sure the election was a fair election."