Do You Really Support Romney? Really?

Once again, another conservative stuck on this one singular topic. For all of good things that Ron Paul represents, conservatives all sing out with the same chorus that his foreign policy isn't good. Meanwhile you nominate an un-electable candidate like Romney as though the Republican brass had a deal to throw the election. Ron Paul was your electable candidate but because he's actually making sense by stating that we can't afford to keep fingers in every corner of the world you label it bizzarre. He's right and how you and your kind don't understand that is baffling. Our country is broker than broke. We're falling swiftly into where England is. How long before we simply can't keep our troops abroad? You have no thought to how our current brand of foreign policy is weakening our base and stripping us of our middle class. You seek a short answer, as conservatives do, by labeling Paul "bizarre" because you are unable to look 3 steps ahead.

Oddly, this problem is simple---there's no money---we cannot continue as we have and we have an intrinsic need to regroup not further sell away our country. Hope you're boning up on your Chinese.

!

Mine:
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Bush
Perot
Gore
Kerry (uhg)
Obama

I will say that having had a small to medium sized business from 1992-2002 that I did really well under Clinton (the simple answer is that with the exception of NAFTA, Clinton took care of the middle class and they in turn help churn the economy) and one of the reasons I sold this particular business in 2002 is how Bush changed the tax code. In my experience, looking back, I don't see how Republicans are considered business-friendly.

What a load of shit. When Bush Jr. was doing this stuff you guys didn't have a word to say. It's all Fox talking points these days. Short, simple, answers-not a solution, just an answer.

..And the utter silence from you, and the rest of the conservatards when he goes on vacation, plays golf, uses a teleprompter, continues actions in Afghanistan, etc.. We won't see weekly posts about dismal job numbers, and economic indicators either.. And the same people that cry anytime their precious Dubya is mentioned will be the first ones bringing up Obama on a regular basis..

I'll be throwing away my vote this year by writing in Ron Paul, and encouraging others to do so as well.

There is not a newspaper large enough to print all the new FEDERAL laws that have taken effect just this year.

Believe me, I couldn't believe it either.

You are just like Sarah Palin ! Like they were all passed on one day. I bet you can see France from you home.

I don't see any meltdowns happening if Romney wins. The handful of unstable (meltdown types) people here seem to be on the right (thank you faux news!).

Better change your vote to Obama of you really want to see some good meltdowns.

Oh yes! The meltdowns will be of epic proportions when Obama is reelected.

I was talking to a developer recently. He was building a townhouse community but it's basically going bust. He said under these new regulations, banks won't give you a housing loan if the community hasn't sold over 50% of the units. Doesn't matter if you have perfect credit. No loan...

Mitt was my governor for 4 years and he's not a "slimy creep." He's not as Conservative as I would like him to be but his platform, for the most part, is solid and (more importantly) he will be working with a Republican-controlled House and hopefully a Republican-controlled Senate - he's not going to veto their budget out of the gate. What we need right now is drastic cuts in spending, drastic cuts in regulation (including the complete repeal of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank) and a simplification of the tax code. I am convinced that even if Mitt Romney is not completely with the program that that elected officials in Congress from the party that he will be the titular head of will tug him over to the right positions.

After all, what's the alternative - 4 more years of failure from Obama?

I don't support Romney...I support removing Obama.

And a vote for a libertarian is essentially a vote in support of Obama....protest away at everyone's peril....

Thank you for the preview. I think that I have been specific on my Bush criticisms. I also believe i have applauded Obama when he deserved it as well. Obama has probably been a bigger failure to you guys than the right. You should be having a pretty engaged pity party. I have fundamental disagreements on how he feels about government intervention (including wars) that if he gets a second term it will give him too much leverage to steer us off a cliff. I do not love Romney but I feel faced with the current realities he will steer us on a more fiscally conservative approach than the idealogical one that Obama seems to favor. Obama does not have what I feel are the proper skill sets needed to run the country (we could expand this critique throughout Washington).

Ron Paul how would you end the war in Afghanistan if you were prez? "We come home".

Too easy for the average thick headed American to comprehend. "that's bizarre".

we prefer the long way out.

You realize all these new federal laws you speak of had to pass the gop controlled house in order to become law, right?

I was shocked to find out that you have to be 21 (maybe it was 18 but I think she said 21) to buy that spray air keyboard cleaner shit.

Not true.

They could have been passed earlier and not gone into effect until this year.
They could have been done by executive order.
They could have been done as bureaucratic regulation.

And as long as people continue to think this way we will never have true choice in this country.

The Rs and Ds are just two sides of the same coin.

Sorry...Obama stands alone as his own coin...its not even close. I understand what you are saying, but in reality what you are doing is helping to re-elect Obama. It's just that simple. Your protest will help to re-elect Obama. Hope and Change !

What a Dingbat!!

If they were passed earlier and not gone into effect until this year, they would have still needed to be passed by congress.
There is not enough laws that were made via executive order that they could "not fit in a newspaper"
If it is due to bureaucratic regulation, it still either needs to pass the congress or be signed via executive order. That is if it is a "law", which is what we were talking about.

Call me crazy but if they passed a law saying you needed to be 21 to buy potato chips, im pretty sure you would have read about it before it went into effect. Also, the first lady can not pass any laws. So even if it was true, it would not be due to the first lady

'Regulations' don't have to pass Congress. There were over 81,000 pages added to the federal register in 2010, about 1/2 of that was new regulations...

he better stick with the regs, passing laws that are constitutional presents it's own challenges to Obama

She was referring to laws though, not regulations.In order for a administrative agency to pass a regulation, the agency has to be formed, which must go thru congress.