In Saturday night’s debate, Mitt Romney, who probably sees the former Utah governor as a mild threat in New Hampshire, pressed the point, telling Huntsman, “{Y}ou were, the last two years, implementing the policies of this administration in China. The rest of us on this stage were doing our best to get Republicans elected across the country and stop the policies of this president from being put forward.”

It took 12 hours, but Huntsman thought of a good response, explaining in Sunday morning’s debate that he, like his two sons currently serving in the Navy, has been willing to serve under a Democratic president. “I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country — I will always put my country first,” Huntsman said.

Brian Powell flagged Romney’s fascinating retort.

“I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles, and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama’s agenda.”


Think about that for a moment. As far as Romney is concerned, putting country first means putting country second — or perhaps third, behind ideology and party.

Or as Powell put it, “Essentially, he’s saying Americans serve the country best by serving the Republican Party first.”

For what it’s worth, Huntsman has decided to effectively make this his closing statement, trying to turn his Obama administration service into a positive. He spent yesterday afternoon pushing the “country first” message, and last night, argued, “Mr. Romney apparently believes in putting politics first.”

The problem for Huntsman may be that he’s out of step, again, with his party — the Republican base very likely agrees with Romney, and believes “putting country first” means pushing a far-right agenda and refusing to compromise with Democrats.

But I also suspect outside the GOP base, Romney’s insistence of putting party and ideology above all is rather offensive.

Offensive, yes - but unsurprising.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/turning_country_first_on_its_h034627.php

For once Romney is correct. However, Romney is incorrect if he the HE is the guy to do this.

Is Obama putting the country 2nd or even 3rd by promoting his far left socialst agenda and the ideologies of the Democtrats first?

I can say you do a grave injustice to these United States serving the Republican party.

And that is how an American should put his country first. And so agrees Tommy J.


Pot calling Kettle.


Predictable.






http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/turning_country_first_on_its_h034627.php [/quote]

Simple question: name one R candidate who wants to reduce the deficit. I mean "want" like "I want to buy a car, so I'm saving money for that purpose." not "I want a pony."

Every single one of them bitch about the debt, then propose economic plans ("GOP economic plan" = tax cuts for the rich) that make it worse.

They don't put america first or second or third. They want to drown government in a bathtub and (with the exception of Huntsman) have signed a pledge to do exactly that.

Can't. Won't try. Your disdain for Republicans is <= to mine.

Agree as well. Everyone should be taxed equally. 4th Amendment, ya know. Rich guys gets federally taxed 1% so should minimum wage guy, on income. No tax refunds. Then we can talk about State income taxes too.

Don't know which pledge you are talking about but would love to research it. However, I doubt they did. All but one are Big Government Republicans. You just don't agree to which part of the government they want to grow but side with the parts they want to "drown in a bathtub".

I personally want to drown ALL aspects of this government. Cut the DoD and the Social Entitlement programs 6/8 to what they are today. Then let the States deal with self governing.

What get's me is the game You seem to play with your posts. If your side does it good for your side. But when those damn Republicans do it... It really is the pot calling kettle.

And this is evident in the fact that you avoided my simple question to this quote:

Is Obama putting the country 2nd or even 3rd by promoting his far left socialst agenda and the ideologies of the Democtrats first?

Doubt no longer.

http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge



Tried that. It was called the "Articles of Confederation." We have this other thing called the Constitution now.



There is no moral equivalency between promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all...and doing it for the 400 hereditary oligarchs at the top of the wealth pile alone. Stop sucking billionaire d*ck and think for yourself for five seconds.



Fallacy of the complex question. The complex question is what you get when the answer to a question depends on the answer to another question being accepted as true. When did you stop beating your wife? When did you stop molesting children? When did you stop receiving anal sex from farm animals?

The President's agenda is getting us out of the pit Republicans put us in. It's extremely business-friendly--witness the record profits and the fact that American businesses are sitting on a trillion dollars in savings. The tax burden is the lowest it's been in 50+ years. Et cetera. Socialism has f*ck-all to do with it.

Democrats want to save America. Republicans want to destroy it and sell the pieces to approximately 400 people. That's the bottom line.

Here endeth the sermon.

See, I try having a polite conversation and here you go being a leftist piece of shit asshole. You are so bent on republicans you can't see straight.


Great. I see a huge list of dickheads. But Lumberjack assertion "They want to drown government in a bathtub and (with the exception of Huntsman) have signed a pledge to do exactly that." I don't see that list. I see a list of republicans pledging not to raise taxes. AND if you believe the two are the same. I'd sign it too.

Cut government.


Cute. And the Constitution was modeled after them. 9th and 10th Amendments, kiddo.


Response below**




That's your bent bottom line and wrong as usual.

**If you can stop sucking half black d*ck it would be great. I can't hear your "sermon" when your words are mumble by jungle juice gargling noise. Like I said to begin with you are so bent on Republicans (makes me think you were shunned at one of their gay baths) that you can't see straight. Also your socialist agenda BENDS anything you think you are saying when speaking about the Constitution, maybe an intervention and deprogramming is what is best for you.

Democrats & Republicans have been destroying this country since the formation of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Growing government to a enormously despotic size. Bickering and blaming the other sides when not in control of it. It's fucking hilarious that neither side can see that. It's pot calling kettle. Blah blah whine democrats. Blah Blah whine Republicans.

Lumberjack asked a simple question and got a straight answer. I asked a likewise simple question. Maybe he can answer it.

Good to see you hop onto iKayaks bandwagon.

Want a forseen bottom line: Your guy is out NO MATTER which Republican gets the ticket. And he'll continue destroying the country. While USING the tools your guy is putting in place and then at some fucking point you guys will get control and do the same.

I said earlier that sometimes I don't regret toggling. This wasn't one of them. I'll try again some other day.

I'll have to read up on him. Looks like he has a lot of great ideas. And now that I see his bathtub line in context, I agree.

My goal. Cut government. Tax everyone equally.

Toggle away, Lumberjack. You stayed civil, so did I. Beavis acted a fool, so will I.

So, if your friends jump off a bridge......?

Irrelevant question. Beavis would be considered a foe. A foe shoots, I shoot back. Just as Lumberjack is considered a foe. He acted civil so did I.

However, My foes may be idiotic enough to jump off bridges. My friends aren't. Foes come a dime to dozen, friends are chosen wisely.

How does a faceless cipher on the other end of an electronic bulleton board get elevated to foe?



"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi

I think you screwed up your quoting? Because that only makes half sense if at most.