Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What can you say about Mitt Romney.

You really do not make sense: would you ruin yourself eating in top restaurants and then let yourself die of hunger in front of a fast food joint.

There are only 2 candidates and therefore there is no "best", just one "better". If you fail to vote for the better candidate, you are a social liability.

Whoa there! You forget about Ron Paul. He is going to steal the nomination at the GOP convention and soon thereafter the whole country is going to open their eyes and fall in love with him. Come November he will win the Presidency 90% to Obama's 5% with 5% being still undecided but leaning toward Ron Paul. In the coming year sometime, to quote Merle Haggard, "everybody will get free bubble up and rainbow stew". miles

bad and worse.... again!

So you're in your mid 70s now? I had imagined you were in your mid 20s.

deersmeller,

I make a lot of sense if you understand that I do not trust Oromney nor do I see him as a legitimate alternative to the Kenyan. He is not conservative. He has a legacy of gun grabbing and growing big government. He was the first politician in the history of our country to legitimize socialized medicine.

To my way of looking at Oromney, the liberal media sold him to gullible Republicans because their desire to defeat Obama left them vulnerable and easily duped. The liberal media knew that Oromney's record leaves him vulnerable to Obama.

Were either one to win, we're screwed.

But don't forget this, deersmeller: our country is not a democracy. We're a republic. Popular vote does not elect our president. The electoral college does. California is dominated by liberal Democrats and neocons. Obama will win every single one of CA's 57 electoral votes w/o campaigning here. He will also win New York's electoral votes w/o campaigning there. If you understand this fact, you can grasp why I am not voting the less evil candidate. Moreover, even if Oromney had a remote chance of winning in CA, I still will not vote for him. I do not trust him.

The Republicans have gone out of their way to throw this election. Who knows, maybe the RNC knows Obama will win reelection, so they threw a neocon in the race as sacrificial lamb. Or it could be that the rationale for such a strategy is that the economy is too far gone for deliverance. Therefore, it's more advantageous to have a Democrat at the helm when it does sink.


Take care,

R

Reagan's legacy is impeccable: the longest peacetime economic growth in history; saving American jobs: e.g., Intel, Ford, Harley Davidson; defeating the Evil Empire; lowering taxes; and rebuilding our military are but a few of his most notable achievements.

Reagan was not responsible for increasing the deficit except as it related to military spending, which was essential to his strategy for defeating the evil empire. Since congress controls the budget, Tip O'Neill lied to Reagan. He promised Reagan three dollars of governmental spending reduction for every dollar in new spending. Reagan agreed to the deal. He kept his end of the bargain. The Democrats didn't. The resulting tax increase was blamed on Reagan; however, historians know the truth.

What pisses people off about Reagan was that he was the real deal.

R

Enjoy those blinders Raisuli....

Willful ignorance at it's best...

That was as President. Look at his record as Governor then get back to me.

He became the real deal. Absolutely my favorite public figure in my lifetime, bar none.

I mainly hang around the Savage Collector's forum and posted this there. I thought it relevant to this thread. The main point I am making is a second term Obama will likely be much more aggressive than a first term:

One of the things I have heard that I find most frightening is that many conservatives are going to skip the election because of how they feel about Mitt. Whatever you say about Mitt, I can't believe that our guns would be under more threat than him vs. another Obama term. Like any new President, Obama entered his first term with the agenda of winning a second term. I don't begrudge him that as every new President has that agenda. However, a second term... there is no future election to worry about... nothing to lose.... If you think he's aggressive about his agenda now, you haven't seen anything yet. Believe me, if anyone comes my way complaining about Mitt and saying they won't vote, I'm going to take a few deep breaths, count to ten and calmly explain why not voting is in fact, a vote toward losing our guns.

As Governor of California Reagan:

Legalized Abortion.
Highest Tax raise in State History up to his Governorship.
Mullford Act in 1967 was an anti-second amendment weapons ban.
Unleashed the National Guard on Berkley.


As President Reagan was a compromiser. He compromised his principles in order to lead the Nation.

Those things he was faced with as Governor helped shape his future. He has said that if he had had more experience in office then many of those decisions would have gone differently.

The point here is that if Reagan was running today based on his record as Governor, then Raisuli and his ilk would be screaming RINO and calling him a liberal socialist statist.

Romney has also had to compromise as a Conservative Governor in a Liberal State. He has said that if he had more experience then he too would have done things differently.

Romney isn't Reagan, but he's no where near as far left as either of the Bush guys.

Raisuli and his ilk refuse to look at history and compare apples to apples. They are so stricken with tunnel vision that they refuse to accept reality.

He ain't that nappy-headed hussien.

We all know the type, they would throw the country away just for the chance to tell us "told you so". miles

First reply was best... He ain't Obama.

I've never met people so eager to have a self fulfilling prophecy occur just to be "right"....

Yep -It is good to have threads like this to get him, TRH, Mike762 and DD to admit they're supporting Obama by default. But, refusing to accept reality is a common characteristic in the RP crowd.

Promises and Bull$hit, sounds about right. You can go on and on all day, but it won't change the fact that everything Romney says is in direct contradiction to how he governed, and it's all not worth the spittle he has used to utter it.

As opposed to Obamas truths and openness. miles

�Other than your opinion, you have no facts to back your assertions.�

The record clearly shows that Romney has the ability to change with the tide.
Mitt was the Governor of a blue state and his record reflects that.
Those who know him and say that he works as a consensus builder both as a Governor and a CEO have his record and his results to back them up.

Obviously based on the facts, Romney is driven by the need for results and not by ideological boundaries.

Yes he was a lefty in MA, he was not a stupid man.

As the momentum builds for a second conservative landslide this fall, he has not suddenly caught a case of the stupids. He is fully aware of what happen in the 2010 election and has moved further to the right than he as ever been before.

As he faces a 2013 Congress that will have also moved even more to the right, he will have no reason to pick a fight, nor buck the odds and try to govern as if he was back in MA.
Romney wants results that will build his legacy, and he wants a second term.

So when that �so called Tea Party Republicans have done $hit since they've been there�� except to send yearly Ryan budgets to the Senate where they died along side Orrin Hatch�s balanced budget amendments come back in 2013...

When the 2013 Ryan budget and Senator Orrin Hatch 18th balanced budget bill drops on President Romney�s desk�he will sign them in a heartbeat.

He will kill ObamaCare on Day One because�Romney is not a stupid man.

Taking into consideration his history and the fact that he's turned his administration over to the same people who ruined George Bush's legacy for all eternity,..I'll say this for Romney.

He's never allowed character to get in the way of ambition.