He is doing a LOT of things that are unconstitutional but the Republicans in the House are probably more than aware even if they DID impeach him (and something they likely would never want to do during an election year to where all attention would be centered on just that instead of the other important issues--like the economy), he'd never be found guilty with Democrats in charge of the Senate. And now, he has the authority granted by Congress (which itself is unconstitutional) that allows him to take anyone into custody without a trial and held indefinitely, essentially ignoring our rights are citizens. Unfortunately, dictators are only removed outside of the law not within it and that would be as unfortunate for our nation as having to be subjected to tyranny in the first place.
But yet the White House has NO lack of opinion on ANYTHING the Republicans do in the House of Representatives, does it?
I'm from Missouri and I voted for Santorum. I've been in favor of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann as well as Newt Gingrich. I would definitely vote for Mitt Romney if he's the nominee as well. There are things I don't like about nearly any of them but I can't think of ONE thing I like about Obama. I just want to get rid of that SOB because he's RUINING this country. But even after getting our nominee we're going to have to contend with the most DISHONEST election this country has ever seen. That irks me more than probably anything. The results of opinion polls going around these days is NOTHING compared to the garbage we're going to see when the election comes what with all of the voter fraud that's coming.
The absolute WORST voter disenfranchisement is to have honest voters' votes neutralized or overturned by people who have NO right to vote in the first place.
If Newt wins the nomination, does ANYONE actually believe that Obama would subject himself to debates that would make him look as foolish as he actually is? My guess is that he'd accept ONE debate and insist on rules that would cater to his strengths. Let's see--the FIRST EVER debate where the participants use teleprompters. Obama has some STUPID ideas but he is NOT stupid.
Where was all of the outrage from the liberals when an Occupy participant defecated on a cop car? We're they instead PRAISING these people for what they were doing--and still are in fact?
Yeah, the Guv is right about being mad. He believes that homegrown cheating Dums should be able to only vote that way. Nothing worse than a cheating Dum being disenfranchised when he is trying to cheat--only to find out that someone else has already gotten a ballot for the person. What's an "honest" cheatin' Dum supposed to do these days?
Why bother even TRYING to have a rational discussion with people who base their stance entirely on emotion? There's no point to it and all that happens is people simply keep spouting their same points without paying any attention to what is being said. Ever heard of throwing pearls before swine?
Reread my first sentence. I already said that it was open. Republicans shouldn't put much stock in how candidates do in open primaries because it's way too easy for proponents of the other party to screw up the results, particularly if they have no primaries of their own, with an incumbent running.
States like Iowa and New Hampshire that allow an open primary where people other than Republicans can participate are pretty much MEANINGLESS insofar as how REAL Republicans feel about who should represent the party. Personally, I don't give a FLIP what independents or Democrats think of who our nominee is. The winner of Iowa is rarely likely to be the nominee OR to be elected President and ANYONE who thinks if Paul does well that it's a sign of anything hopeful for his campaign is a wacky as he is.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig