Because its ova!
Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.
Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't.
But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?
Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?
Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices!
And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)
It may have been his, but once he announced his feelings about gay marriage he drove N.C. away.....they are religious people who don't accept the idea of gay marriage.NC was never in play for him anyway.
Mass elected a REP Senator also. (scott brown)
Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.
Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't.
But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?
Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?
Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices!
And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)
Its really just this simple. We know what we are going to get if Obama is re-elected. Romney is a fresh face with new ideas, and a business background to boot. While he isn't the ideal candidate his election will mean a positive turning point in the direction of this country.
The Mrs. was on The View with the vampiras Whoopie & Joy playing hardball.
I would've never gone on there and would tell Whoopie to "bite me"
They never asked about religion when the Obamas were on there....just softball questions. Mrs Romney should only appear on progams where she is respected and treated properly. Let The girls at The View have to BEG an interview with her and then never go there. Snub those bitches!!
'View' takes religion, military, abortion shots at Ann Romney after playing 'romantic' softball with Obamas | Fox News
Do I know how to fight cancer? Now that's funny. I never said that Ann couldn't handle it........My comments were on the Whoopie and the Joy . Where is their fairness treatment of "first ladies".??.......there are 2 possibilities for 2012 Michelle & Ann. They should be treated the same. I don't remember grilling Michelle about her husband not serving in the military.. They didnt badger Michelle about her faith.
Those 2 in particular, Whoopie & Joy are monsters.