Mitt Romney: We're better off strictly following the Constitution? WTF?!!!

Anyone who has any common sense will see right through that type of rhetoric...sadly, I'm afraid to say that the common sense of most people seems bankrupt.
 
Anyone who has any common sense will see right through that type of rhetoric...sadly, I'm afraid to say that the common sense of most people seems bankrupt.
Unfortunately the sheeple don't have common sense only what the brainwashing will allow, unless they can be woken in time.

.
 
I hope enough people realize that RP's talking points were all stolen. I find it interesting that a candidate who once "didn't have a chance in last place" has about 7 mirrors on the stage now.

The pandering, ridiculous political flip-flooping the others do for votes is truly vomit inducing. It is personally insulting to me when I hear Rudy or Mitt talk even refer to the Constitution...as if any of them as even read the document, or much less intends on following a single word of it.

Bush is a perfect example of why this kind of political pandering cannot stand....because now we know that they just say whatever they have to to get elected then spend the next 8 years systematically destroying the country.
 
This from the same candidate who says he has to consult with his lawyers before going to war... :rolleyes:
 
Oh my gosh! the candidates were too tired to show up for the debate and sent their pre-programmed clones. The clones were only capable of reiterating Dr. Paul's words. Out of control Clones took over the debate. No wonder it had no life. Once Immigration and Iraq were removed from the debate, there was nothing else for the clones to say, since they knew nothing about economics or the Constitution. Just mouthed the words. LOL

:D :D :D
 
Mitt Romney: "I changed my position on the Constitution. Effectively, I used to be against it, but now after seeing the huge grassroots support for Ron Paul, I'm all for it! At least, until it interferes with my attorney's decisions on whether to bomb, or to not bomb."
 
His answer was in the context of whether their is a constitutional right to privacy. He thinks that in a "strict" interpretation of the document, there is no right mentioned, and that's why he talks about legislating if a "new" right is found. (How can there be a new right discovered, you've got me). This is his way of saying he follows the constitution, while supporting things like warrantless wiretaps and the "patriot" ACT, which are actually unconstitutional.

So we should only choose at certain times to strictly follow The Constitution. Undeclared wars are ok, though, right?
 
So we should only choose at certain times to strictly follow The Constitution. Undeclared wars are ok, though, right?

Not exactly. We should always strictly follow the Constitution. We just need to change our definition of "strictly" every now and again. :rolleyes:
 
That's because Romney believes rights are granted by government.

Of course, they're not rights if they can be voted away, they're privileges.

No understanding of the constitution whatsoever, and highly dangerous.

Completely agreed, but we've been dealing with exactly this type of thinking, for what, 100 years now with the glaring exception of Ron Paul and perhaps a half dozen others? You think we'd be used to it by now.
 
Back
Top