Back in mid 2011 Obama said this:

Lqx69f88tIE

That was a lie then (because he never meant it); and it's definitely a lie now.

Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress | Fox News Latino (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/06/17/obama-invokes-prosecutorial-discretion-to-circumvent-constitution-and-congress/)

Of course when Obama had complete autonomy with a democrat-controlled congress, it seems this wasn’t on Obama’s scope. He could have made any changes to immigrations law he wanted. He didn’t. Not until an election year, and failing numbers with in the Latino and Hispanic communities, did Obama see it necessary to make this move.

That aside, the move goes against what he promised:

“This notion that I can just change the laws unilaterally; that’s just not true… The fact of matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the “Dream Act” passed and comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true… We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature; and then I can sign it.”

Can someone tell me what changed in our constitution between mid-2011 and now where suddenly the legislative process isn’t necessary? Can we read this – based on the quoted statement from Obama’s own mouth – as we are no longer a democracy?

Little chips away from our constitution while we are sleeping. Where is congress in this? Silent! And what’s even more bothersome is Romney refuses to speak out against this move. Seems we’re about to put just another progressive in the WH under the guise of a ‘conservative’ label.

This is NOT about immigration (legal or illegal). This is about whether our existing laws even mean anything to this president. This has to do with whether the CONSTITUTIONAL process for passing or overturning existing law is even a viable process anymore. Obama admits this process exists; then blatantly defies it. He claims we live in a democracy; then destroys that democracy with a swipe of a pen.

If he can override this existing law through executive fiat, what others are possible? Election laws? Is anyone really thinking about it?

well Obama did it 1st, Mitt can use the same reasoning to not enforce penalties in Omabcare ....

..... NO IRS 'fines' if you do not have the required coverage


See how that works .....

..... one should be careful of the power they hand themselves, because Sooner or Later - THAT Party will lose to the opposition

He also said this... Oops!!

J9isifcg9ik

Little chips away from our constitution while we are sleeping. Where is congress in this?

Do you feel better when the constitution is obviated as more of a group activity? I mean, pick a point in time; Wilson? FDR? Hell, Lincoln? LBJ? Nixon?

One of the things we, the people, tend to do is think that our time MUST be the worst, ever. That's a subjective thing 'worst' but, you get my meaning.

Do you feel better when the constitution is obviated as more of a group activity? I mean, pick a point in time; Wilson? FDR? Hell, Lincoln? LBJ? Nixon?

One of the things we, the people, tend to do is think that our time MUST be the worst, ever. That's a subjective thing 'worst' but, you get my meaning.

I don’t think there are very many in this forum that don’t realize that with virtually every president the constitution has been pushed aside for one reason or another; that our constitution is constantly being ignored.

So do we play “point out bad behavior to justify more bad behavior” or do we just chalk it up to “this how the system works” or do we cry out “enough is enough”? None of us should feel better when the constitution is ignored by anyone or any group. What gets solved when you support your own in violating that which you claim you love so much? And, given we have been in this economic malaise for several years now, and we’ve seen such large leaps towards socialism in the past decade, I think this is arguably one of the worst and worrisome times of my lifetime. And this not for me, but for my kids. We are doing nothing to pass on to our kids a more stable economy and globe. All seems to be done in just the opposite.

So do we play “point out bad behavior to justify more bad behavior” or do we just chalk it up to “this how the system works” or do we cry out “enough is enough”? None of us should feel better when the constitution is ignored by anyone or any group. What gets solved when you support your own in violating that which you claim you love so much? And, given we have been in this economic malaise for several years now, and we’ve seen such large leaps towards socialism in the past decade, I think this is arguably one of the worst and worrisome times of my lifetime. And this not for me, but for my kids. We are doing nothing to pass on to our kids a more stable economy and globe. All seems to be done in just the opposite.

Ah yes, but, I would argue Wilson's era had to be worse, much worse. This nation was torn from it's independence from the rest of the world, idyllic in out our American-ism. Whatever problems we had were ALL ours so, we were free for any significant foreign entanglements.

And, I would argue 1861-65 was catastrophically worse than now and that at an age when we were as similar in culture and traditions and ideas and faith AND connection to the founders as we could be. Whatever Lincoln's violations of the law, very serious, devout and principled people lead opposition to to him, that cost them everything they held dear as well as their own violations of what they claimed was sacred so, 2a's call's for bloodshed fall under the heading 'be careful what you wish for'.

Look at the socialism of FDR's era from his economic ideas to his impulse to court stacking and other overt subversion's of the constitution. I'd argue that was a worse time than now.

And Nixon? The greatest expansion of government since the New Deal and the greatest until Bush 43.

The older I get, the less idealistic I get as I grow into seeing the practical realities of a nation that, even with the antics of Obama, is still a pretty good place to live. Again, it's arguable that Obama isn't all that special in the annals of Presidents that dismissed the law. Given all we have given away the last, what, 150 years or so, plus all the gains we've made in pursuit of a more perfect union, do you see a point right now, or soon, where you feel compelled to take up arms against the government? I don't.

:shrug:

well Obama did it 1st, Mitt can use the same reasoning to not enforce penalties in Omabcare ....

..... NO IRS 'fines' if you do not have the required coverage


See how that works .....

..... one should be careful of the power they hand themselves, because Sooner or Later - THAT Party will lose to the opposition

Yep. A lesson that we learned during the GW Bush administration.

Ah yes, but, I would argue Wilson's era had to be worse, much worse. This nation was torn from it's independence from the rest of the world, idyllic in out our American-ism. Whatever problems we had were ALL ours so, we were free for any significant foreign entanglements.

And, I would argue 1861-65 was catastrophically worse than now and that at an age when we were as similar in culture and traditions and ideas and faith AND connection to the founders as we could be. Whatever Lincoln's violations of the law, very serious, devout and principled people lead opposition to to him, that cost them everything they held dear as well as their own violations of what they claimed was sacred so, 2a's call's for bloodshed fall under the heading 'be careful what you wish for'.

Look at the socialism of FDR's era from his economic ideas to his impulse to court stacking and other overt subversion's of the constitution. I'd argue that was a worse time than now.

And Nixon? The greatest expansion of government since the New Deal and the greatest until Bush 43.

The older I get, the less idealistic I get as I grow into seeing the practical realities of a nation that, even with the antics of Obama, is still a pretty good place to live. Again, it's arguable that Obama isn't all that special in the annals of Presidents that dismissed the law. Given all we have given away the last, what, 150 years or so, plus all the gains we've made in pursuit of a more perfect union, do you see a point right now, or soon, where you feel compelled to take up arms against the government? I don't.

:shrug:

We can go through the whole list of presidents and their socialist/anti-constitutional/government expansion policies all day long; and we’re still left with the question: Where does it end? Where do WE – Americans – say we’ve had enough?

I’m not necessarily talking about expansion of government. I’m talking about nixing and violating existing law with executive power all in one fail swoop. I’m talking about a president that stated he supports the legislative process and honors existing law, then defies all of that for the sake of election-year politics. FDR at least had enough sense to violate the constitution through the legislative process. Whether we like it or not, whether it violated the constitution or not, it was still our representative government at work. With Obama, he aims to unilaterally violate every aspect of our laws and processes of government. This is an affront to our democracy and the inception of a dictatorship. And we sit here debating the history of past presidents and their unconstitutional moves and whether the Civil War era was far worse than today. I am living today and this is the worst period of my life on nearly every level simply because I am horrified to pass this on to our children.

As far as taking up arms... Never have I been more concerned about a government that has become so intrusive into our lives. Cameras everywhere. The storing of massive amounts of communications information. Forcing us to buy something we may not want. Banning things we do want. Telling businesses what they can and can't provide to their customers. Executive orders (http://www.infowars.com/obamas-latest-executive-order-martial-law-confiscation-of-private-property-and-forced-labor/) that give the federal government massive power to confiscate land all in the name of national security. An administration that shoots down any attempt by states to enforce existing FEDERAL law (Arizona's immigrations bill), while instituting executive orders than actually violate and dismantle existing law. Ignoring abject violations of the law (the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incidents). A president that inserts himself into a fabricated racially charged incident (Zimmerman/Trayvon) while ignoring the violence in our inner cities whose murder rates rival death rates on warring battlefields. A president who is bent on breeding racial dissention through class warfare. A president who is outspokenly against peaceful protests of those that demand we get back to smaller government and the constitution (Tea Party), while supporting violent protests that are aimed at tearing down capitalism and our constitution (OWS).

So to your question: “do you see a point right now, or soon, where you feel compelled to take up arms against the government?” Perhaps it’s not a matter of ‘if’; perhaps it’s a matter of ‘when’. Americans can only take so much.

EDIT: I need to make myself clear here. I am NOT advocating violence. These things always need to be resolved, PEACEFULLY, in our elections. No matter how much we may disagree with our government we should always aim to put people in that support our philosophies. I don’t want anything I’ve posted to be misread as advocating violence against any elected or non-elected official. I’m only voicing the sentiments of what I hear blowing around. People are gravely concerned for their liberties and see them quickly vanishing. Based on what we’ve seen in Greece and elsewhere, we know that people have limits and will likely resort to violence when government gets too oppressive.

We can go through the whole list of presidents and their socialist/anti-constitutional/government expansion policies all day long; and we’re still left with the question: Where does it end? Where do WE – Americans – say we’ve had enough? .

If you think about, searching for 'where does it end?' is pretty much the source of discontentment in the first place, yes? If you think, like I used to, that politics actually matters in a real sense, an 'enough is enough' sense, then, aren't we setting ourselves up for disappointment? People far smarter and stronger and wiser than me have come and gone and this is where we are.

What I am suggesting is that, perhaps, it doesn't end. It's not a comfortable thought just throwing your hands up when you WANT to believe things could be better but, are they all that bad, really? This isn't, nor even close, Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

I mean, think about it in some sort of context that is easily accessible to your mind and life's experiences. For me, the civil war works great. A WHOLE bunch of very learned, principled, devout, experienced folks decided things were so intolerable that the sword was the answer. And they lost everything. Do you suppose they wished when it was over they could have had it back to reconsider just how bad they thought things were?

Perspective. :buddies:

Back in mid 2011 Obama said this:

Lqx69f88tIE

That was a lie then (because he never meant it); and it's definitely a lie now.

Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress | Fox News Latino (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/06/17/obama-invokes-prosecutorial-discretion-to-circumvent-constitution-and-congress/)

Of course when Obama had complete autonomy with a democrat-controlled congress, it seems this wasn’t on Obama’s scope. He could have made any changes to immigrations law he wanted. He didn’t. Not until an election year, and failing numbers with in the Latino and Hispanic communities, did Obama see it necessary to make this move.

That aside, the move goes against what he promised:



Can someone tell me what changed in our constitution between mid-2011 and now where suddenly the legislative process isn’t necessary? Can we read this – based on the quoted statement from Obama’s own mouth – as we are no longer a democracy?

Little chips away from our constitution while we are sleeping. Where is congress in this? Silent! And what’s even more bothersome is Romney refuses to speak out against this move. Seems we’re about to put just another progressive in the WH under the guise of a ‘conservative’ label.

This is NOT about immigration (legal or illegal). This is about whether our existing laws even mean anything to this president. This has to do with whether the CONSTITUTIONAL process for passing or overturning existing law is even a viable process anymore. Obama admits this process exists; then blatantly defies it. He claims we live in a democracy; then destroys that democracy with a swipe of a pen.

If he can override this existing law through executive fiat, what others are possible? Election laws? Is anyone really thinking about it?

Nope. Everyone's asleep. :ohwell:

If you think about, searching for 'where does it end?' is pretty much the source of discontentment in the first place, yes? If you think, like I used to, that politics actually matters in a real sense, an 'enough is enough' sense, then, aren't we setting ourselves up for disappointment? People far smarter and stronger and wiser than me have come and gone and this is where we are.

For someone that was such an outspoken advocate for a new face in politics (Ron Paul) I’m surprised to see this come from you. I mean, you talk about setting yourself up for disappointment. You enthusiastically supported someone that you knew wouldn’t win; for what? PINCIPLE! Because it does actually matter. Because you know if you could somehow get someone like Ron Paul into the WH it might actually matter.

Politics mattered when the GOP took control and Newt and his gang pushed their ‘Contract with America’. They actually, for a short time, got things done. Politics mattered when the democrats took control and convinced Bush massive government expansion and things like TARP were necessary. Politics mattered when Obama was able to pass Obamacare. It matters when they actually get things done; whether you agree with those things or not.

And it really matters when those politics are used to oppress the very people that put them into power.

For someone that was such an outspoken advocate for a new face in politics (Ron Paul) I’m surprised to see this come from you. I hardly thought Paul a new face in politics. :lol: I thought him, the ideas of limited government, to be a natural progression for a people beset and suffering after a stunning 12 years of growth of government. He's been there, the ideas of others long before him that he supports and represents. Kind of a 'in case of emergecny,break glass' kind of thing. I mean, you talk about setting yourself up for disappointment. You enthusiastically supported someone that you knew wouldn’t win; for what? PINCIPLE! Because it does actually matter. Because you know if you could somehow get someone like Ron Paul into the WH it might actually matter. I didn't think Paul likely to win. I did, however, think what he represented would be met with, at the very least, relatively reasonable success. In THAT, I was wrong. Way wrong. Not only was there substantially less interest but, I watched as all manner of people who claim to support limited government, nationally, folks on here, dismiss him as a kook. It was an eye opener.

Politics mattered when the GOP took control and Newt and his gang pushed their ‘Contract with America’. They actually, for a short time, got things done. I think you are right. There was an active, robust check and balance. Politics mattered when the democrats took control and convinced Bush massive government expansion and things like TARP were necessary. It serves no good to blame TARP on anyone but Bush. His Sec Treasury was in charge and brought it to him and then it was presented to the D's. It does no good to misplace blame here. Politics mattered when Obama was able to pass Obamacare. It matters when they actually get things done; whether you agree with those things or not.

And it really matters when those politics are used to oppress the very people that put them into power.

And this is what I have learned; far more people than I thought are all for bigger government. They, very simply, just want it to be their team constitution and country following distant second and third. We, the people, see our party as preeminent. This isn't new, of course. However, we all know, intellectually, there is very little difference in the parties in what they do these last half generation. That's just reality.

If I just set aside my view of what is constitutional and what is not and any sort of application or test as to one party or the other, it makes it easier to just see politics for what it is; competition between the two parties. It's not that I take any comfort in the resounding rejection of the concepts of limited government. It's more the excuse making that bothers me that there was something so wrong with the messenger, especially in view of his competition, well, I mean, come on. We all know what is coming regardless of who wins; more government.

:shrug:

In any event, you make a good point and I wish I could claim to be making some sort of tactical retreat, a 'better luck next time' sort of thing but, in view of where we are as a people right now, it seems a lot more sensible to just set aside principle and just make the best of it. Looking back at our history and what we did vs. claims and oaths of office, anh, it's certainly nothing new so, I take comfort in the idea that I probably would have been far more disappointed to have been an adult under Wilson or FDR or Nixon. Bush and Obama have been pretty bad for ideas of limited government but, they, honestly, aren't even all that special in the larger context of the nation and perspective of what we, the people, accepted in the past.

:buddies:

I hardly thought Paul a new face in politics. I thought him, the ideas of limited government, to be a natural progression for a people beset and suffering after a stunning 12 years of growth of government. He's been there, the ideas of others long before him that he supports and represents. Kind of a 'in case of emergecny,break glass' kind of thing.

Oh for pete’s-crying-out-loud! You know what I’m talking about. Please tell us when Paul landed on the radar for you?

It serves no good to blame TARP on anyone but Bush. His Sec Treasury was in charge and brought it to him and then it was presented to the D's. It does no good to misplace blame here.

If the GOP had control of congress, do you think TARP ever would have happened? Of course, I would argue that if the GOP had control of congress at that time the crash wouldn’t have happened. There’s no way of really knowing.

Oh for pete’s-crying-out-loud! You know what I’m talking about. Please tell us when Paul landed on the radar for you?



About 30 years ago. :shrug:

If the GOP had control of congress, do you think TARP ever would have happened?

Yes, I do. And on the first vote. The only reason it passed as it was was that 9 or so Republicans shifted their vote to yes.

If the GOP had control of congress, do you think TARP ever would have happened? Of course, I would argue that if the GOP had control of congress at that time the crash wouldn’t have happened. There’s no way of really knowing.

You could argue that but, the GOP, with Clinton, sowed the seeds of the housing bubble getting rid of Glass/Steagal as Bubba headed for the exits. And they could have severely restrained Freddy and Fanny any time from 1994 up to 2004, long after dire warnings, including from Bush and McCain in early 2001, that a train wreck was coming.

You could argue the point. A little.

Yep. A lesson that we learned during the GW Bush administration.



Hey NOW ....

.... I was all against the Patriot Act

.... the continued militarization of Local Law Enforcement

About 30 years ago. :shrug:

:ohwell:

You could argue that but, the GOP, with Clinton, sowed the seeds of the housing bubble getting rid of Glass/Steagal as Bubba headed for the exits. And they could have severely restrained Freddy and Fanny any time from 1994 up to 2004, long after dire warnings, including from Bush and McCain in early 2001, that a train wreck was coming.

You could argue the point. A little.

We can rehash this again.

It started before the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Many believe it started in ’94 with the “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/1994/bulletin-1994-30.html)”. You can find dozens of articles that state that this single policy – based on a fraudulent study of racial discrimination in lending – set the stage for the government to strong arm lenders to provide risky loans to ‘underprivileged’ borrowers.

Investor’s Business Daily ‘Discovers’ Government Policies Tied to Housing Crisis « Doctor Bulldog & Ronin (http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/investors-business-daily-discovers-government-policies-tied-to-housing-crisis/)

Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed...

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend “customary” underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

“Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible,” it said. “In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.”

To that end, lenders were directed to “make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market.” They were also advised to “change commission structures” to encourage brokers and loan officers to “lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods” — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as “predatory."

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

Of course, when the dangers of the housing bubble were recognized the Bush admin and republicans tried to warn Barney Frank (head of the Financial Services Committee) and democrats and they ignored it.

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo)

:shrug:

We can rehash this again.

:

Sure. Let's rehash it again. George W. Bush warned in April of 2001 of a coming serious problem in the housing markets and had the power to do something about it for four years...and he stepped on the gas, this being the only segment of the economy showing any growth.

We all cared and hoped and argued...and voted...for the GOP with a 'if we were in charge, why, we'd do this and this and this!' and we got historic power and went the other way. We can make all the excuses we like, the wars, the media, the Dems, but, those excuses will ALWAYS be there. It is not likely that the GOP will ever have that much power at one time again, so, it's all moot.

What he did get, what he did fight for was, well, let's not rehash it all again, OK? It doesn't get any better.

I understand your desire to want to believe in the GOP fighting for, and getting, limited government and representing an enormous number of Americans who want that. The only problem is that there is not an enormous number of American's that want that. You were correct; we are a left leaning country now. I argued otherwise. I was wrong. This election cycle proved it.

What more do you want?

It is flat out comical watching the left try to paint Mitt as some sort of limited government hard core right wing conservative. He might be for a bit less growth in spending than them, good ol' Les Evil but, come on. Government spending and growth will go up every year under Mitt as well and close enough to Obama's rates to not be much of a difference worth getting all bent out of shape over.

Or, maybe I will be wrong again.

:shrug:

Sure. Let's rehash it again. George W. Bush warned in April of 2001 of a coming serious problem in the housing markets and had the power to do something about it for four years...and he stepped on the gas, this being the only segment of the economy showing any growth.

We all cared and hoped and argued...and voted...for the GOP with a 'if we were in charge, why, we'd do this and this and this!' and we got historic power and went the other way. We can make all the excuses we like, the wars, the media, the Dems, but, those excuses will ALWAYS be there. It is not likely that the GOP will ever have that much power at one time again, so, it's all moot.

What he did get, what he did fight for was, well, let's not rehash it all again, OK? It doesn't get any better.

I understand your desire to want to believe in the GOP fighting for, and getting, limited government and representing an enormous number of Americans who want that. The only problem is that there is not an enormous number of American's that want that. You were correct; we are a left leaning country now. I argued otherwise. I was wrong. This election cycle proved it.

What more do you want?

It is flat out comical watching the left try to paint Mitt as some sort of limited government hard core right wing conservative. He might be for a bit less growth in spending than them, good ol' Les Evil but, come on. Government spending and growth will go up every year under Mitt as well and close enough to Obama's rates to not be much of a difference worth getting all bent out of shape over.

Or, maybe I will be wrong again.

:shrug:

I don’t think I’m making excuses, and I don’t think I’m trying to take blame off the GOP. But I think it’s fair to place the root of the problem, the root of the blame, where it belongs rather than blame the party that disappointed you the most. The GOP has been a big disappointment to me too. I’m just as angry as you are. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that efforts were well on their way to inflate the housing/lending bubble when Bush got into office. He inherited it just like Obama inherited his mess. Bush, unlike Obama, made some efforts to warn congress what was coming. Obama did nothing but compound the problem. And this not just an oversight; I believe it was (and is) deliberate. Obama intends to tear down capitalism. He intends to push towards a socialist state. How many times do we have to ask what he really meant about ‘fundamentally transform America’. The only way someone like Obama sees to fix our economic problems is to seize complete control of it. He has gone a long way in accomplishing this. A great American success story.

As I’ve stated before, what choices do we have? We are still a two-party system. Of those two parties, which is actually voicing more viable solutions? At the risk of being boringly redundant… Do we just not vote because we can’t trust either? Or do we simply go with Les Evil? Do we roll the dice again and go ahead with more liberalism/socialism in hopes America will wake up? At what point will it become too late to turn back? Or do we at least get these liberals out of power in HOPES that the GOP actually gets it?

As far as Mitt goes... I am hinging my bets on congress not POTUS. THAT'S where we would get things done. Mitt will go whichever direction they go. That's how weak I see him.

I don’t think I’m making excuses, and I don’t think I’m trying to take blame off the GOP. But I think it’s fair to place the root of the problem, the root of the blame, where it belongs rather than blame the party that disappointed you the most. T

See. I don't get that, at all. I have ZERO expectations of Democrats and liberals other than MORE gummint, all the time. I know what they stand for. They tell anyone who will listen. On the other hand, this is the GOP;

The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, moderates, and libertarians. Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the party historically advocated classical liberalism, paleoconservatism, and progressivism.

What has dominated of late is the neo conservative group and the social group. Those are the roots of more of our problems than solutions.

It would be nice to see the fiscal conservatives rising. There is no sign of it. None. Everyone in any sort of ascending leadership position voted for TARP. It would be nice to see libertarians ascend. Total rejection. Kooks.

:shrug:

I don’t think I’m making excuses, .

Stop taking this personally. I know you've been trying to make sense of this and you do care, very much. I consider what I think should happen and what you think to be more than close enough to be on the same team. However, I've come to the position, based on actions over time, that the GOP is far too dominated by neo cons and social conservatives to deal with today's problems effectively. We're not in trouble for lack of religious faith or devoutness. We're not in trouble for being too isolationist.

We are in trouble for not being faithful to the constitution and that is a direct criticism of neo cons and social conservatives.

:shrug:

As far as Mitt goes... I am hinging my bets on congress not POTUS. THAT'S where we would get things done. Mitt will go whichever direction they go. That's how weak I see him.

Great. Baynor. Our hope and savior. Have you been paying much attention to the deals he's been trying to make with Obama behind the scenes? To give the TEA party some credit, they seem to be stopping him though they could be a whole lot more public about it.

Great. Baynor. Our hope and savior. Have you been paying much attention to the deals he's been trying to make with Obama behind the scenes? To give the TEA party some credit, they seem to be stopping him though they could be a whole lot more public about it.

OldBaynor is only one guy. I’m talking about how things could play out with a GOP house and senate. I’m a little frustrated with the Tea Party movement. It seems to have stalled and even shifted left. But I’m hoping they will organize and start hitting the streets soon. They could influence how congress gets seated.

This will be a far better measure for success for the GOP and a ‘conservative’ agenda than continuing to look toward Romney. I will gladly take that with a Romney loss than the other way around. As I mentioned, I think Romney will go with the wind. If we get a dem congress, Romney will follow. He’s that weak.

OldBaynor is only one guy. I’m talking about how things could play out with a GOP house and senate. I’m a little frustrated with the Tea Party movement. It seems to have stalled and even shifted left. But I’m hoping they will organize and start hitting the streets soon. They could influence how congress gets seated.

This will be a far better measure for success for the GOP and a ‘conservative’ agenda than continuing to look toward Romney. I will gladly take that with a Romney loss than the other way around. As I mentioned, I think Romney will go with the wind. If we get a dem congress, Romney will follow. He’s that weak.

Ok, but, Romney is the nominee and it, as far as I can tell, his winning has NOTHING to do with his record or what he is likely to do. In fact, we all seem to say he really doesn't have any of the conservative qualities most of us say we think we need. This is the only guy in the room who has instituted an overtly socialist health program. He's a dollar and cents guy, not a principled constitutionalist.

The Speaker may be only one person but, he's not some libertarian with little or no power. We are about to have the tax cut debate all over again BECAUSE John let Obama off the hook at the end of 2010 and got nothing in return. Now, the GOP is about to have to take far more responsibility for the economy than they would have when Baynor threw away the advantage.

All I see is an addled GOP House, maybe a GOP senate and President Romney and all the people who make excuses for Bush when he had FAR more GOP support are gonna get to make excuses all over again.

Ok, but, Romney is the nominee and it, as far as I can tell, his winning has NOTHING to do with his record or what he is likely to do. In fact, we all seem to say he really doesn't have any of the conservative qualities most of us say we think we need. This is the only guy in the room who has instituted an overtly socialist health program. He's a dollar and cents guy, not a principled constitutionalist.

The Speaker may be only one person but, he's not some libertarian with little or no power. We are about to have the tax cut debate all over again BECAUSE John let Obama off the hook at the end of 2010 and got nothing in return. Now, the GOP is about to have to take far more responsibility for the economy than they would have when Baynor threw away the advantage.

All I see is an addled GOP House, maybe a GOP senate and President Romney and all the people who make excuses for Bush when he had FAR more GOP support are gonna get to make excuses all over again.

And I think I’ve agreed with this. I don’t like that Romney was picked. Of course, I think I recall you were coming around to believing he may not be all that bad of a POTUS, so…

If the GOP takes congress and they end up looking anything like Romney/OldBaynor, then we could be in for an ugly ride. But I keep leaning towards believing that being a far better solution than having democrats rule again.

All we can do is keep trying to vote as conservative as possible. In the end, we can either abstain or go with the guy we're given.

All we can do is keep trying to vote as conservative as possible. In the end, we can either abstain or go with the guy we're given.

And that is where we disagree. I say vote for whom you actually support or someone close enough. If Mitt is for you, great.

And that is where we disagree. I say vote for whom you actually support or someone close enough. If Mitt is for you, great.

So you're abstaining again?

Mitt is NOT for me. Obama is defintely NOT for me. What choices do we have? Sometimes I just have to accept that an educated guess may be necessary.

So you're abstaining again?

Mitt is NOT for me. Obama is defintely NOT for me. What choices do we have? Sometimes I just have to accept that an educated guess may be necessary.

Nope. As a Marylander, I have the luxury of voting for who I want, Paul, so I can be smug and point and be derisive of you without any chance of it helping Obama while, maybe, serving as some sort of warning to the GOP. Not that they care what I think. :lol:

Nope. As a Marylander, I have the luxury of voting for who I want, Paul, so I can be smug and point and be derisive of you without any chance of it helping Obama while, maybe, serving as some sort of warning to the GOP. Not that they care what I think. :lol:

So, let's say you live in FL. Who do you vote for?

So, let's say you live in FL. Who do you vote for?

I don't, at least not yet, and I will probably vote for myself ... again. At least I am voting for someone I trust.

I am not a GOP-ite. I am an American. Too bad Democrats and Republicans put party first and the U.S. somewhere down the list.

So, let's say you live in FL. Who do you vote for?

Ohh! Good one! Hmm...