Romney 2008? What do you think

[smatyas 0]

I'm for Romney...

[kagoscuba 0]

Romney (OUTSTANDING speech the other day), then Giuliani, then McCain. I liked Huckabee as a candidate until I found out he did not believe in evolution and has a vision of America "united by Christ." I still like a lot of his views and he's probably a lot of fun to hang out with and have a beer or two, but you couldn't get me to vote for him unless he was running against Stalin. Of course Hillary is only Stalin in a dress. If Barack wins the Democratic ticket, it'll be a tougher choice for me (I'm Independent).

[ELENATION 0]

Romney is way too much of a flip-flopper on issues for me. Almost as bad as the clintoons and McCain

Right now it looks like I am still voting for Ron Paul

Now stop saying that! :biggrin1:if you are going to label Romney as flip-flopper and compare him to "clintoons and McCain" you better mention the biggest flip flopper ever Mr. John Kerry....

[DerickM 1]

well Kerry is not in the running now is he, my dear?

[ELENATION 0]

well Kerry is not in the running now is he, my dear?

hehehe...no but I couldn't resist bringing him up..:biggrin1: also, I wanted to make sure you were paying attention....and everybody else....:peace:

[DerickM 1]

i was Kerry'd out after they nominated him the first time...

[ELENATION 0]

i was Kerry'd out after they nominated him the first time...

Oh I hear ya! I was too!:faint:

[sweethot143 2]

if guliani did lead then it wouldn't be the end of the world he has some great qualities as well, but I'm hoping for romney to lead.

I'd vote Gulliani.

[~Trixie~ 0]

NO ROMNEY, GIULIANI, OR MCCAIN! NO NO NO!

Ron Paul is the man! Do your research on him. He doesn't get the same air time as the others in the media, but he damn well should!

[DerickM 1]

he has raised $11 million in campaign funds, nothing to sneeze at.

[green 6]

so I am loving Romney right now. He seems like a breath of fresh air in a society where the importance of family is fast being forgotten.

Anyone agree or dare I say disagree?

From what I have read Mitt Romney has governed his state very effectively, particularly so in his overseeing of the management of his state's finances. I have also read that in spite of this his religion may pose a problem with the American voter; this strikes me as being a strange reason to choose to not vote for someone who has a good platform and a solid record in his previous performance as state Governor.

I admit that I am curious, however, to better understand your mention of the loss of importance of family in this society; you see, I want to know what you actually mean and how an elected leader could possibly affect this. I would really appreciate it if you were to expand upon this statement.

[Chris_NJ 9]

From what I have read Mitt Romney has governed his state very effectively, particularly so in his overseeing of the management of his state's finances. I have also read that in spite of this his religion may pose a problem with the American voter; this strikes me as being a strange reason to choose to not vote for someone who has a good platform and a solid record in his previous performance as state Governor. I admit that I am curious, however, to better understand your mention of the loss of importance of family in this society; you see, I want to know what you actually mean and how an elected leader could possibly affect this. I would really appreciate it if you were to expand upon this statement.

I think what is trying to be said that in a society with a divorce rate over 50% and conservative values being broken down so much these days its nice to see someone who still holds true to his beliefs and family values first. Thats just my interpretation lol .

[~Trixie~ 0]

I think what is trying to be said that in a society with a divorce rate over 50% and conservative values being broken down so much these days its nice to see someone who still holds true to his beliefs and family values first.

I've been giving this issue a ton of thought lately. I believe in strong family values 100% and tend to lean more towards the conservative side of the political spectrum. However, I am really starting to believe that values and morals should be instilled by one's family and not necessarily from the government. The government's concern should lie in upholding the Constitution, the economy, military security, civil liberties, etc. Morals should not play a role in government. Ethics should. If we as citizens do not like that there is a breakdown of marriages and families, isn't it up to "we the people" to fix that on a societal level? If the government were to be the mechanism by which morals are decided upon, doled out, and enforced, wouldn't religions be obsolete?

It really is time that we as citizens take responsibility for the way in which the moral Fiber of our society and home lives has turned to sh*t. We are responsible for the astronomical divorce rate. We are the ones who do not pick correct suitors, marry for the wrong reasons, and do not work on building strong marriages and seeing them through. The government does not play matchmaker nor lord over one's home. We are the ones who allow our children to be influenced by skanky, drunk and drugged out, Hollywood tartlets who flash their diseased vaginas every opportunity they get. We are the ones who purchase (or give money to) our kids to buy the music, video games, DVDs, etc. that we ourselves abhor and preach against. Our government does not force our children to sit in front of the television or computer for over five hours a day filling their mind's with images that we wish to protect them from. The government shouldn't be the one to put parental controls on our TVs and computers, nor should they monitor anything else that is the responsibility of one's parents. Wouldn't that in fact be totalitarianism, the absolute opposite form of government our Constitution set out not to create?

[miztrniceguy 1]

i'm curious ...of the posters in this thread who like romney...what, if any is your own religous affiliation?

[green 6]

I've read that Romney has been a very effective administrator of his state. I am a Canadian and atheist. Canadians really don't see what role religious affiliation plays, apart from a potentially divisive one, in the management of a government. Now, I am aware that y'all may consider that I am sticking my big loud foreign snout into your personal affairs but I confess that I am awful curious: what role does the religious affiliation of a candidate play if this individual has a proven track record at the state level, is promoting a platform which you find attractive, and seems to be an intelligent, educated, well-informed, and well-grounded kind of guy? Why is religious affiliation so important to Americans?

Up here in Canada the religious affiliation of our candidates is never, ever publically discussed, not when our folks are running for office and certainly not when they are elected. Indeed those candidates who make a point who make a point of displaying their religious affiliations tend to remain unelected. The idea of combining religious beliefs and government tends to scare the poop out of us Canucks. What we do look when we are voting is for signs of intelligence, proven comptence/street cred, and the espousal of a platform which pleases us. From what I have read in the Canadian media is that Mitt Romney has done a fine job of looking after his state's affairs. This seems to be a point in his favour, eh.

And while we are on the subject, I want to mention that I love Tishbite's very wise post. I had written a nice response in praise of this earlier today but it got eaten up in some kind of e-tsunami. blehhh........