Ann Coulter: Why It's Romney

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    I completely disagree with her opinion on Ron Paul, but she has some interesting things to say. It's true that all of the other candidates (I think she's misunderstanding Ron Paul's position on this issue) are in favor of some kind of pro-amnesty compromise policy. Super "religious right" candidates are always unreliable when it comes to border control and tend to be more aligned with liberals.

    IMHO, she is so right that halting illegal immigration and repealing Obamacare are the two most important issues facing this country right now (keep in mind that I severely disagree with her on a number of issues and her attitude irritates me often).

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-12-28.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 3:14 AM GMT
    Uuiugh.

    Man. Coulter just has this all wrong.

    Not withstanding her (and most leading GOP pundits) dislike for Ron Paul, he is against E-Verify not because he is pro-immigration, but because it is a form of a national ID system (like the much-hated REAL-ID with the verichip technology).

    Romney will get the nomination not because of his elite business skills or his sucking up to the Pharisee/Religious Right lobby.

    He will get it because Newt is toxic, and it is "his turn" according to how the RNC does candidate vetting and selection. The RNC and the conservative media - wih opportunistic help from the liberal mainstream media - will utterly trash anyone opposed to their golden-haired boy ESPECIALLY if it is someone with ideas that are largely opposed to their agenda.

    That, and Mitt Romney is a two-faced lying sack of sheep shit who will say any thing and flip flop on any issue to win.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 4:06 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    AlphaTrigger said{anti-Romney rant}



    And despite all that.... he'll be better for the country than another 4 years of Obama.


    I believe so too, as I do not expect him to seriously honour his word as touching that NOM pledge he signed. In that respect his two-faced news might play favourably.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 6:01 AM GMT
    I agreed with MOST of what she said, though I think she was dead-wrong on this..."Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election". Rick Santorum couldn't win re-election in his home state, so I see no real hope for him getting the nomination, much less winning a general election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 6:10 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI agreed with MOST of what she said, though I think she was dead-wrong on this..."Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election". Rick Santorum couldn't win re-election in his home state, so I see no real hope for him getting the nomination, much less winning a general election.


    I think Ron Paul is one of the most if not the most dangerous candidate we've had run in my lifetime. I'd vote for Obama over Ron Paul. And I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd vote for Santorum
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 6:18 AM GMT
    http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 6:33 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.dickmorris.com/blog/



    I really loathe Dick Morris. He has a poll on his website that doesn't include Jon Huntsman. He goes with whatever way the wind is blowing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 6:38 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.dickmorris.com/blog/



    I really loathe Dick Morris. He has a poll on his website that doesn't include Jon Huntsman. He goes with whatever way the wind is blowing.


    I don't always agree with him, but I agree with him, Coulter, Krauthammer on this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 6:47 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidhttp://www.dickmorris.com/blog/



    I really loathe Dick Morris. He has a poll on his website that doesn't include Jon Huntsman. He goes with whatever way the wind is blowing.


    I don't always agree with him, but I agree with him, Coulter, Krauthammer on this one.





    Morris and Krauthammer are nothing but NEO CON War and Israeli Lobby lapdogs that will push for more war, Romney is right in there with them. Wasn't Iraq bad enough, do you people really want more of what these groups pushed on the US public and the Iraq Citizens ?


    You cannot ignore these war issues, they are the most detrimental issues that these people and candidates all back except for Ron Paul. What are you republicans thinking ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    Why would anyone listen to anything she has to say? I wouldnt listen to her recommendation on shit house paper. She is deranged.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:05 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    Morris and Krauthammer are nothing but NEO CON War and Israeli Lobby lapdogs that will push for more war, Romney is right in there with them. Wasn't Iraq bad enough, do you people really want more of what these groups pushed on the US public and the Iraq Citizens ?


    You cannot ignore these war issues, they are the most detrimental issues that these people and candidates all back except for Ron Paul. What are you republicans thinking ?


    You are too much!!!! STOP THE INSANITY!!! Mitt Romney is not necessarily a bomb thrower.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidWhy would anyone listen to anything she has to say? I wouldnt listen to her recommendation on shit house paper. She is deranged.



    Ann Coulter is no dummy. I will be the first to admit that she doesn't sit well with everybody. Her brand of abrasive, often-times harsh commentary designed for shock factor, can be very polarizing. On the other hand, she is no dummy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    catfish5 saidWhy would anyone listen to anything she has to say? I wouldnt listen to her recommendation on shit house paper. She is deranged.



    Ann Coulter is no dummy. I will be the first to admit that she doesn't sit well with everybody. Her brand of abrasive, often-times harsh commentary designed for shock factor, can be very polarizing making a shit-ton of money in book sales. On the other hand, she is no dummy.


    Fixed.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    catfish5 saidWhy would anyone listen to anything she has to say? I wouldnt listen to her recommendation on shit house paper. She is deranged.



    Ann Coulter is no dummy. I will be the first to admit that she doesn't sit well with everybody. Her brand of abrasive, often-times harsh commentary designed for shock factor, can be very polarizing making a shit-ton of money in book sales. On the other hand, she is no dummy.



    LOL ^^^^ That too ^^^^ icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI agreed with MOST of what she said, though I think she was dead-wrong on this..."Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election". Rick Santorum couldn't win re-election in his home state, so I see no real hope for him getting the nomination, much less winning a general election.


    I think Ron Paul is one of the most if not the most dangerous candidate we've had run in my lifetime. I'd vote for Obama over Ron Paul. And I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd vote for Santorum


    Wow we completely disagree on that. I'd prefer Ron Paul over ANY of the candidates, let alone BO.

    That being said, if anyone is voting GOP they better get used to Romney because I'm almost certain he will be the one.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    Wow we completely disagree on that. I'd prefer Ron Paul over ANY of the candidates, let alone BO.



    I honestly think I could live with Ron Paul if he ever got elected. Unfortunately, I just don't think Americans are brave enough to roll the dice on him because it would definitely be a case of "Throwing Caution To The Wind". It could either be the most dangerous decision Americans ever made, or the smartest. Could go either way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    Romney is loser candidate, but the big money is behind him..so the rightwing noise machine has their marching orders.

    Romney has changed his mind and positions so many times, that who can honestly say what he'd do? He needs to go back to buying companies, firing the employees and moving the factories to China.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said
    Morris and Krauthammer are nothing but NEO CON War and Israeli Lobby lapdogs that will push for more war, Romney is right in there with them. Wasn't Iraq bad enough, do you people really want more of what these groups pushed on the US public and the Iraq Citizens ?


    You cannot ignore these war issues, they are the most detrimental issues that these people and candidates all back except for Ron Paul. What are you republicans thinking ?


    You are too much!!!! STOP THE INSANITY!!! Mitt Romney is not necessarily a bomb thrower.





    Now its insane to keep the reality of how all of these candidates are falling in line with the NEO CON's pushing for war with Iran ? (all but Ron Paul of course) Why do you and other republicans keep glossing over this very real and extremely detrimental war backing by your candidates.

    Are you republicans backing these people really that blind, or that caloused that you cannot see what a desparate situation these wars have got the US in? Think about all the loss of life, the wasted Trillions of dollars and how much ahead we here in the US would have been if all that effort had been put toward improving energy technology here at home rather than on wars to control Middle East Oil.

    And you tell me to "STOP THE INSANITY" of exposing this while you republicans back a continuance of these wars by Backing these NEO CON lap dogs running for the Republican nomination? Read Romney's statements in support of going against Iran, he and all the rest are beating their war drums to get that NEO CON and Israeli LOBBY money and support. THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE TO THE US AND NEED TO BE EXPOSED and no its not "INSANE" to keep exposing those who back more war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:35 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    AlphaTrigger said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    catfish5 saidWhy would anyone listen to anything she has to say? I wouldnt listen to her recommendation on shit house paper. She is deranged.



    Ann Coulter is no dummy. I will be the first to admit that she doesn't sit well with everybody. Her brand of abrasive, often-times harsh commentary designed for shock factor, can be very polarizing making a shit-ton of money in book sales. On the other hand, she is no dummy.



    LOL ^^^^ That too ^^^^ icon_lol.gif


    I never said she was a dummy. Shes deranged. And shes an opportunist. Stop listening too her and stop the flow of $$ into her bank account. Simple as that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidRomney is loser candidate, but the big money is behind him..so the rightwing noise machine has their marching orders.

    Romney has changed his mind and positions so many times, that who can honestly say what he'd do. He needs to go back to buying companies, firing the employees and moving the factories to China.



    I think we might actually be in agreement on something, lol.

    Ron Paul is the best choice, even if his foreign policy is non-interventionist. Though I support Dr. Paul for this reason alone, if not his other solid ideas.

    The biggest reason he will not get the nomination will be his hands-off of the Middle East (especially and including Israel).

    Though I support Israel as a counterweight to the Islamist nations, it is high time that we let Israel off her leash (or alternatively, gotten off of the leash from Israel) and let her deploy herself as she sees fit against her aggressors.

    And I agree Mock - Romney will get the nomination because he is being positioned by the GOP leadership (and by the MSM to lose against Obama).

    He is the perfect throwaway-candidate, leaves room for the GOP to groom a more unbeatable candidate for 2016 such as Chris Christie and give Obama room to well and truly fuck things up if he decides to take the gloves off and fly more truly to his Euro-socialist (or worse, Afro-socialist) programming.

    The trouble with that is by 2016, a lot of the stuff like ObamaCare and other worse policy issues will be not be able to be undone.

    It really is a prefect win nearly for the liberals, if they can keep from devouring each other over their many divided issues.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    realifedad said




    Now its insane to keep the reality of how all of these candidates are falling in line with the NEO CON's pushing for war with Iran ? (all but Ron Paul of course) Why do you and other republicans keep glossing over this very real and extremely detrimental war backing by your candidates.

    Are you republicans backing these people really that blind, or that caloused that you cannot see what a desparate situation these wars have got the US in? Think about all the loss of life, the wasted Trillions of dollars and how much ahead we here in the US would have been if all that effort had been put toward improving energy technology here at home rather than on wars to control Middle East Oil.

    And you tell me to "STOP THE INSANITY" of exposing this while you republicans back a continuance of these wars by Backing these NEO CON lap dogs running for the Republican nomination? Read Romney's statements in support of going against Iran, he and all the rest are beating their war drums to get that NEO CON and Israeli LOBBY money and support. THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE TO THE US AND NEED TO BE EXPOSED and no its not "INSANE" to keep exposing those who back more war.


    BRAVO!!!!!

    War with Iran means trillions to military contractors and oil companies. Immigration and "Obamacare" are just side issues to froth up the base. The war will leave us TRILLIONS deeper in debt, just like Iraq.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:41 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ said

    I think Ron Paul is one of the most if not the most dangerous candidate we've had run in my lifetime. I'd vote for Obama over Ron Paul. And I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd vote for Santorum


    Wow we completely disagree on that. I'd prefer Ron Paul over ANY of the candidates, let alone BO.

    That being said, if anyone is voting GOP they better get used to Romney because I'm almost certain he will be the one.





    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Mock, I think your right, the Repubs will end up nominating Romney for their Presidential Candidate. We would get the same basic results from Romney as we did Obama, perhaps minus a more thoughtful and cautious Obama approach to more war and some Social issue defferences.


    What if Paul runs as an independent ? Will you vote for him ?

    If Paul does run independent and the two party system put up Romney against Obama, Paul will get my vote.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:45 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    I never said she was a dummy. Shes deranged. And shes an opportunist. Stop listening too her and stop the flow of $$ into her bank account. Simple as that.


    As annoying as she can be at times, I also find her amusing. I like her. So sue me icon_lol.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Dec 29, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    He is the perfect throwaway-candidate, leaves room for the GOP to groom a more unbeatable candidate for 2016 such as Chris Christie and give Obama room to well and truly fuck things up if he decides to take the gloves off and fly more truly to his Euro-socialist (or worse, Afro-socialist) programming.



    I really think you and others may be underestimating the power of Mitt Romney. Should he actually get the nomination, and it's looking more and more like this will be the case, you're going to see a great many people who previously supported other candidates suddenly jump on "The Mitt Romney Bandwagon". He will be hard not to like for the right -- especially after he rolls out the family and wife during the campaign and at the convention. This is the consummate American family that oozes happy marriage, family values, success, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2011 5:57 PM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    White4DarkerFL saidRomney is loser candidate, but the big money is behind him..so the rightwing noise machine has their marching orders.

    Romney has changed his mind and positions so many times, that who can honestly say what he'd do. He needs to go back to buying companies, firing the employees and moving the factories to China.



    I think we might actually be in agreement on something, lol.

    Ron Paul is the best choice, even if his foreign policy is non-interventionist. Though I support Dr. Paul for this reason alone, if not his other solid ideas.

    The biggest reason he will not get the nomination will be his hands-off of the Middle East (especially and including Israel).

    Though I support Israel as a counterweight to the Islamist nations, it is high time that we let Israel off her leash (or alternatively, gotten off of the leash from Israel) and let her deploy herself as she sees fit against her aggressors.

    And I agree Mock - Romney will get the nomination because he is being positioned by the GOP leadership (and by the MSM to lose against Obama).

    He is the perfect throwaway-candidate, leaves room for the GOP to groom a more unbeatable candidate for 2016 such as Chris Christie and give Obama room to well and truly fuck things up if he decides to take the gloves off and fly more truly to his Euro-socialist (or worse, Afro-socialist) programming.

    The trouble with that is by 2016, a lot of the stuff like ObamaCare and other worse policy issues will be not be able to be undone.

    It really is a prefect win nearly for the liberals, if they can keep from devouring each other over their many divided issues.



    The only way Ron Paul will ever debate Obama, will be to run as an Independent. I hope he does that, as he's the only one who sees the US is headed toward bankruptcy.

    Our country is like the star athlete who made $50 million a year and spent every dime supporting anybody who asked. Now we're an athlete making $35 million a year because of more competition...and we've been borrowing the difference to try and control the world. We can't do it anymore. So, I want to hear a serious discussion about how we can't continue being the World's Policeman.