RobertNashville

I don't agree, Mike. There is no and I would say, never can be any organization that has more than one member where everyone agrees 100% on issues or even on what issues need to be addressed. Certainly, someone who is a social conservative and someone else is who is a libertarian and someone else who is a fiscal conservative are not going to agree on all issues but there are plenty of issues they can agree on; at least enough to work together.Hell, I consider myself a social conservative and a fiscal conservative and have libertarian leanings...but I don't agree with any one of those "groups" 100%. I was at the March on Washington in 2009...it was a hugely diverse group (along with simply being huge)...I'm sure there were people in my own little group from Tennessee who I could find disagreements with; that doesn't mean we couldn't find common ground. The Tea Party is not a "party"...it's not even any one group or collection of groups...it's really just average people who are doing what citizens should have been doing all along...getting involved and making their voices heard (even if they all don't always say the same thing).

*

If people want to believe that Jesus never existed; fine...you can "believe" anything that makes you feel better but very few archeologists or other historical scholars actually believe or even purport that Jesus did not exist.

And I suppose you have copies of their birth certificates to show when they were born?

Actually; whatever you believe about Jesus; there is non-biblical evidence of his existence including Roman historians Thallos, Pliny the Yonger, Suetonius and the most widely know, Tacitus.It's not exactly a "birth certificate" but if we use that standard then BHO doesn't exist either.

Since you've made it clear you intend to not vote for him it's curious that you would care at all about his record. Mitt Romney doesn't need me or anyone else to apologize for him - there are issues on which I agree with him and issues I don't agree with him and that has been true with respect to every candidate that has ever run for office that I have considered voting for in any past election and probably always will be true unless I am running for office myself. I'm voting for Mitt Romney for one simple reason, he is the single best choice of all the available choices we have for President this year and one of only two choices (the other being Obama) who will win the election in November. It's no more complicated than that. Regardless of who wins in November, even were it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, it is up to the citizenry to hold him accountable for his actions and how he governs. The responsibility of the the true citizen of the United States doesn't end with an election or just because "their" candidate wins...all must be active...all must invest time and resources into their government or who wins is meaningless. In my opinion, it's because so many have shirked that responsibility for so long that we now have a government that is but a poor, shallow reflection of the government our founders gave to us.

My personal religious belies are at the core of who I am as a person...they have guided me throughout my entire life...they serve as a guidepost for finding my way through life and as a standard to live by. I'm not going to beat people over the head with my religious convictions but of course I'm going to work toward government policies that are in line with those beliefs; to do otherwise would make me a liar and untrue to who I am.

And you know this because you are so intimately involved with the Johnson campaign and working with his legal staff, right? Anyway, if they are without substance then Johnson has nothing to worry about...he'll be on the ballots and lose just like he expects.

Except that isn't what I suggested - if you had read my post you would have seen that I said he should be removed from the ballot IF the challenges are legitimate (I actually used the phrase "have substance") I didn't say or suggest that he be removed for any other reason. Are you suggesting that a candidate that hasn't met the requirements be allowed to remain anyway?I'm not voting for Romney because he's a Republican; I couldn't care less what party he's from...what I do care about is getting someone in office that might actually like America a little bit...maybe has some morals and maybe; just maybe will have a clue as to how to start to get our country back on track...Romney is the ONLY candidate that can do that AND win...it's really that simple.

Nope...not smart...in fact...pretty damn stupid.

If you are saying that Romney is anything close to a socialist then I don't believe you know very much about Romney. There are certainly plenty of Republicans and Democrats who are socialists and/or progressives but complaining about it won't change that...working for and voting for better candidates will.This isn't about "rewarding" anyone; it's about doing what is best for the country and doing what is best for the country is NOT leaving Obama in office.

I have never knowingly carried past a sign and I have no plans to do so why do you feel the need to lump all HCP holders into one non-law-abiding basket?What we need are NO SIGNS or at least, no sign that makes us carrying past one guilty of anything more than simple trespass. As far as I'm concerned, no business open to AND DEPENDENT ON the public for its very financial existence should have the power to disarm me at all, with or without a "sign".

Who is worse, the Israel hating communist in the White House or the U.S. Jewish community which tends to vote for Democrats like him (and including him)?

It might put me in a better mood but there isn't enough weed in the entire country to make me think that Gary Johnson has a change of winning in November.

So if we don't buy the Johnson/Paul line of "vote for me even though I can't win" line we are "party hacks"? Now THAT'S funny!!!Show me a better candidate than Romney who can actually win the election and I'll happily vote for him...until then, well, sticks and stones and all that.

Yuup...we do need a handyman but it ain't Gary Johnson. Whether he will or not remains to be seen but Romney at least has a record of turning pigs ears into silk purses and he has the potential to move us off of the path toward socialism that Obama (and many before him) have put us on...more importantly, he has a legitimate chance of winning the election.

Maybe he's an idiot and truly does believe it...but I don't really think he's that dumb; so...I can only assume that he's in it to stroke his own ego.

Amen...anyone that helps Obama, directly or indirectly is the enemy! This guy claimed to be a "lifelong Republican"...until it better served his purposes not to be; that lie alone disqualifies him to be President. As to the topic of the thread, if any of the challenges (assuming they are truly happening) have substance then he needs to be removed from ballots.

So...just so I understand... You hold up the decision leaving Obamacare in place as proof of Bush's bad SCOTUS nominations yet you seem content to leave the socialist in office who forced Obmacare on us because Romney isn't a good enough choice for you...yeah...that's logical!

Yeah...as a matter of fact, is did turn out well.I'd take a John Roberts and Samuel Alito any day of the week and ten times on Sunday compared to what we've gotten out of the socialist and especially what we will get out of the socialist. Are you suggesting that Mr. Tree or Mr. Catsup would have made better selections? Do you think either of the two recent second amendment related cases ruled on by SCOTUS would have had the same outcome if Tree's or Catsup's nominees were sitting on the court?

Well you know, when it comes to revenue, law enforcement departments aren't much different (read "greedy") than any other arm of government. One need look no further than "red light cameras"...I guess we all have "rights" until someone can figure out a way to tax it.

I don't believe this particular video but this kid might be a better source than some that have been used.

I guess we can all keep arguing about how unfriendly Romney would be to the Second Amendment bit of Obama has his way the arguments will all be academic by the time time January 2013 rolls around and certainly after another four years of the communist in chief.

LINK: https://www.examiner...out-due-process

The Republican Party is far from perfect but the Republican platform is far more in tune with the Constitution than the Democratic platform...and as a group, it's been my experience that Republicans tend to adhere to Constitutional principles much more than do Democrats as a group (but like all politicians; it's up to the people to keep them accountable). Clearly, there are folks here who either don't like Romney or are pissed off that their candidate didn't win (or maybe really do like Obama) and are not going to vote for Romney - so be it. If you don't like Romney or you think another four years of Obama is no big deal then vote for Obama, or write-in a name or don't vote at all as all three actions have about the same outcome. I may not live long enough to see the ultimate effects as such effects can take quite a while, but the two to four supreme court nominees the next President will likely get to nominate will have far more wide-reaching effects on our country and the liberties and freedoms most here claim to hold dear than the actual person sitting in the oval office for the next four years will have - I for one don't want Obama to be the one to make those nominations as I can't imagine him making good ones ("good" being defined as those who will truly follow the Constitution). I have no illusions that Romney is a strong second amendment supporter but I've no fear that he is going to grab my "assault rifles" either. Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that he doesn't even believe that a person has a right to use deadly force to defend himself in his own home...so if I'm voting just on that one issue (which I don't)...the choice is still pretty clear to me.