This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Obama is Betraying America! Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Obama is Betraying America! Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

33 comments:

NewGuy said...

Obama, Pelosi, Reid.....Hillary, Holder, you name the Dem in a leadership position. They are all trying to impose a bigger nanny state, redistribute wealth, control health care, institute amnesty for illegal aliens, and make it harder for you to own any firearms.

How can anyone compare this to Romney's positions and determine that they are comparable? Blaming Romney for a long history of Massachusetts laws instituted by a liberal state government over many decades is ridiculous. Look at what these liberal democrats have done to our country in the past 3 years alone! And Reid is not going to put a budget proposal on the senate floor again this year!

Spend, spend, spend....buy as many votes as possible! Tell people that are not paying any income taxes that the problem is that the "rich" people need to pay even more.

NewGuy said...

Senate Democratic leaders do not plan to propose a budget this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Friday, saying that they had already done so with the debt-ceiling agreement.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Reid said, according to The Hill

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/reid-senate-will-not-pass-a-budget-this-year/#ixzz1lQLvk8aT

guy faulkes said...

Because Romney's record shows he has done ht same thing, New Guy.

Support him if you want to. I will not, nor will many more.

Mike D. said...

NewGuy,

If you have to spend considerable time trying to convince conservatives to support a candidate which they actively proclaim they will not support, on a conservative blog, how on Earth do you think this candidate could actually be elected?

Never mind the words that Romney speaks. They mean nothing to me. I look into the man's eyes, and I see dishonesty. I see a person who will say whatever he needs to say to serve his own interests. I am looking at his soul, not reading the script that feeds out of his mouth. Nothing you can say is going to overcome that.

So why continue to support him? Why not support a candidate who will not cause a significant percentage of participants on a conservative blog to tell you, in no uncertain terms, that they will not vote for this candidate?!

Blogger said...

NewGuy "They are all trying to impose a bigger nanny state, redistribute wealth, control health care, institute amnesty for illegal aliens, and make it harder for you to own any firearms." Super summary. Thanks!

Sarkazein said...

"I look into the man's eyes, and I see dishonesty."-MikeD

That's a good trick. How many times have you met him or talked to him in person? Oh, you can do it over a TV screen or a photograph. Cool.

NewGuy said...

Guy, you have made your point. I am curious however, exactly WHAT gun law did Romney implement while he was governor of Mass? I know he signed off on an assault weapons ban that had been in existance prior to his term - agreed to make it permanent. I disagree with him on that point but it isn't something he initiated - it was in place prior to his term. As far as I have seen (and I admit my research is shallow) any of the other gun laws he signed off on actually were LESS restrictive than the ones they replaced. If you have specific examples to the contrary, I would appreciate you pointing them out to me as I admittedly have much more research to do on this issue!

And Mike D., I remain very much in the "undecided" category- I am not trying to get anyone to support anyone at this point. I personally will support the Republican nominee over Barack Obama. I'm not capable of looking into anyones eyes and seeing their soul! I wish I could! I pretty much go with what actions they have taken in the past and I consider what they are saying they will do in the future. Romney seems to have the strongest position against illegal immigration. He isn't carving out exceptions for grandmothers or letting "local boards" decide amnesty (I see a huge migration of illegals to Chapel Hill to apply to their local boards should this asinine idea ever take root). Romney calls them "illegal" even though he has consistently been advised against it for political expediency. He vetoed a bill to give illegal immigrants in state tuition breaks in Mass.When the bill was brought up again a couple years later, he led efforts to defeat it. He signed an executive order giving State Police authority to arrest and begin deportation proceedings against illegal aliens. To say that this is "no different" than Obama policies is to admit ignorance on this issue!

Finally, while he was governor, he eliminated a 3 billion dollar state deficit and in fact ran Massachusetts with a surplus his last 2 years in office. That is what we need done at the National level.

I would prefer Vince Gable's position on gun control to that of Mitt Romney. But, Vince isn't running for this office yet!

I have not given up on Newt - although I think his chances are getting slimmer all the time. I will reserve judgement in the primaries for now. BUT, since there seems to be so much verbage about Romney and gun control, I was hoping someone could at least back up their position with some specific legislation that ROMNEY supported as governor of Massachusetts. To argue that he was once governor of a state that has restrictive gun laws does not convince me that he was the cause of those restrictions being implemented. And, in a state with appx 85% Democrat legislature, it's hard for me to hold him solely responsible for not effecting more changes!

Wolf's Head said...

Romney is "Establishment". I'm beginning to believe that there is no "Republican" or "Democrat" Establishment just The Establishment.

Romney and his big money donors want one thing, to control the System. Not advance freedom, or restore rights but just to control what exists. He'll tinker with it to try and make it more efficient, but in the end he is just another Big Government A**hole like the rest.

I agree with Guy that Romney cannot win without Conservatives, which is why he is tap dancing about his record so much.

ANY candidate who would support and enforce such an unconstitutional law as an Assault Weapons Ban doesn't deserve to be a Dog Catcher.

guy faulkes said...

The "assault" weapon ban that he supported is only a part of what disqualifies him. He did nothing to try to overturn any of this legislation.

There is also government controlled health care which he developed and served as the basis of Obamacare and his support for murdering unborn babies.

Sarkazein said...

There was a meeting of the "Establishment" tonight. There was dinner, cigars, and brandy. We decided to give Nevada to Romney. We decided this as punishment for Newt because of his "Romney starved Holocaust Survivors to death" ad. We may look at Newt again later if he gets some control over his inner Carville.

Sarkazein said...

We (the Establishment) were actually worried that giving Florida and Nevada to Romney might look a little conspicuous because of Nevadians and Floridians love of their guns. No way the citizens would just vote for Romney, so of course we had to "fix" it. We gave Santorum a written test on System Control, but he didn't even know what we were talking about. So he's out. One of our people are meeting him at the airport tonight to let him know. He was told not to announce it for a while so it didn't look too obvious.

Reader said...

I'm gonna agree with the others, New Guy. There's something about Romney I don't feel good about.
I don't think any of them are right for the job. If his is all we have to choose from...we need a third party.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- I too would have liked to have seen a Conservative Third Party. If it is started by a jilted primary loser, I couldn't support it. It should have started two years ago. It didn't. If a Party does emerge and I like the candidate, I would give my support until the writing on the wall says it is only a spoiler (Perot). As of now, it looks as we will have a reality to face. Four more years of Obama, unleashed because of term-limit, is not acceptable.

Mike D. said...

NewGuy,

If this blog, and every one like it, declared unequivocally that Romney is unacceptable instead of defending him while many participants cry out that he will not do, then he would not be the front runner right now!

How many people have to proclaim their mistrust and opposition to Romney before you and Sark realize that if he is the Republican nominee, Obama will have second term?

I am inclined to agree with Wolf, that there is but one Establishment.

The only way we win is by refusing to play the game any more.

What percentage of participants in this forum have actually spoken in direct support of Mitt Romney? Zero percent? Yet we are supposed to believe that he is the most popular of the candidates? I don't buy it.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- You are too obvious---You wrote- "The only way we win is by refusing to play the game any more."

An Obama agent, no doubt. Not even real good at the subterfuge, having admitted in a comment (perhaps in an even weaker moment) you are capable of voting for Obama. At first I thought you were a closet Leftist... but no, you are a player in Operation Get the Conservatives to Stay Away From the Polls.
Establishment... yea, you are from the Obama establishment. I'll bet you have a big ZERO on your chest right now.

guy faulkes said...

So far, by my count, Blogger, New Guy and Sark will support Romney if he is the candidate. The Wolf, Ricco, Reader, Mike D and I would go third party or write in.

Is this correct? It would be interesting to see how the members of this blog feel.

If I am correct and this blog is indicative of conservatives, Romney cannot be elected.

Mike D. said...

Guy,

You've got mine pretty much correct, with the consideration that I would even vote for Obama over Romney, if there is no third party candidate. If I write in a candidate, it will be Buddy Roemer.

Sarkazein said...

"...with the consideration that I would even vote for Obama..."-Agent MikeD.

There you go folks.

Sarkazein said...

Agent 000 MikeD

Mike D. said...

Sark,

Be part of the solution for a change. Between your simplistic snipes and your nonsense jargon laden arguments, you are starting to sound a bit like this local crazy person Craig Dudley who used to post in local forums.

Sarkazein said...

NOTHING is crazier than-- ""...with the consideration that I would even vote for Obama..."-MikeD

I'll never be able to match it.

Sarkazein said...

"Be part of the solution for a change."-MikeD

Sound familiar?

Sarkazein said...

What could be more simplistic than--"The only way we win is by refusing to play the game any more."?

Mike D. said...

Sark,

"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." - Winston Churchill

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table." - Ronald Reagan

"Change in all things is sweet." - Aristotle

"Any change is resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist." - Richard M. Nixon

"There is nothing permanent except change." - Heraclitus

"Sometimes if you want to see a change for the better, you have to take things into your own hands." - Clint Eastwood


Any other words in the English language that you find inconvenient, Sark?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- What is the "solution".
1. Don't vote
2. Write in your own name
3. Vote for Obama
4. Don't count the votes of the Romney supporters
a. Only count Newt supporters votes
b. Only count Santorum supporters votes
5. Support an as of yet non-existant Third Party
6. Don't vote for a yankee
7. HOPE for another candidate with pure Conservative credentials or a blank political tablet so we can project our own individual political egos on their blank tablet.
8. Claim victim status of the "establishment" and try and get a law passed to protect us
9. ________________

Sarkazein said...

Let me fill in 9., as I had not read your last post.
9. Quote others

Sarkazein said...

HERE is Obama's "Establishment" and it isn't the Park Police

Reader said...

Guy, I'd vote for Ron Paul, as kooky as he is, before Romney. He reminds me of Kerry. I still think Newt is the better choice over Romney. Sorry Sark, I know you don't like him or his Pelosi dealings, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. We all mature and I'm hoping he has as well. I'm not giving up my "hope" just yet on Newt.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- "We all mature". Newt's hand in the cookie jar (and Nancy's knickers) was not that long ago. The Fannie/Freddie thing is both the main cause for the financial collapse and a premier example of greed. The financial collapse is the main reason we have Obama.
Kerry became powerful by marrying rich women. Romney's wealth is Romney's. Kerry is known to be a jerk. He wears out the phrase "Do you know who I am?"
Last night I was watching an interview with Santorum. All of a sudden he was imitating Dukakas's speaking style. This may be why he hasn't caught on. But, I am not here to defend Romney. I am only trying to defend the US against the final results of Sol Alinsky's life's work. Apparently (as seen by the vote tallies) more Republicans prefer Mitt over anyone else. I just don't happen to think they are all stupid.

Sarkazein said...

Newt was Speaker. He received money from Fannie as Speaker. He lost his Speakership and his access to Fannie. Nancy became the Maitre de at the government trough. Newt knew the game. To get his spot at the government trough, he had to grease the Maitre de's palm. Nancy didn't need dollars, her thing is power. Newt knew how to donate to her power and his pocket. He did. Unforgivable (politically)... in my book.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- I will say this-- if Paul wins the primary, he has a good chance of picking up both liberal and Conservative votes in the general. That's a rare combination. If Paul wasn't so goofy on national defense, even if he was just half as goofy, he could win the primary. President Paul (with a Conservative Congress not wanting or allowing us to go back to muskets and sailing ships) would be great!

Sarkazein said...

Another brilliant Conservative

Sarkazein said...

"We would rather have a Republican president that's not fully the guy we adore wanting our affections than a Democrat president who despises us and covets the affections of our mortal enemies on public policy," he (Armey) said.