The War on Moms

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Not a great analogy for the scenario going on in this election. It's ridiculous to think I would support Romney just because he is slated to win. Obama won and he was the worst. Supporting someone on principle is more important to me than whether they win or not.

Mitt is a set-up candidate. Conservatives fell for the Hillary Rosen story hook line and sinker. A total political set-up. Romney was happy for it because it gave him a chance to rally the troops and Obama was happy because it got Michelle off the table. The shere timing of Romney's response to the story was enough to give you a clue it was a political set-up. Are people just blind or what?

If you think Obama won't go after Ann in the general election, think again. As much as Romney went after his fellow candidates with all the fervor of the black plaque, don't think he will go after Michelle in the general. Throwing Rosen under the bus by the Democrats was only a small truce between the spouses, for now. They don't want us to look too closely at Michelle.

And while some might have been offended by Rosen's remarks, there are a whole lot of others that know it is, today, a luxury to stay at home with your children. Some women will say that it's good for Ann, but there will be many others that will look at it as on the point of "privilege". Romney never served in the military and neither did any of his five sons. No, it's not fair, but bank on it. That's what it is. Romney needs to get out of the culture war. He is looking too much like Obama.

More Conservatives are very put off by the way Romney took down his opponents one by one. And it's not that he did it, it's the way he did it. Mainly, by dishonest means. Even if he wins, we will still be staring just as much at a virtual statist administration as the current one, and that is nothing to get excited about.

It's a perfect analogy. I voted for Santorum. Romney wasn't my choice. But if he is the nominee, and it looks that's the way its going to be, I'll take him any day of the year over BO. I will not vote for some guy from the Constitutional Party, someone whose platform I'd probably be nearly 100% in agreement with because he doesnt have a chance to defeat Obama. I'd vote for Paul or Gingrich. I'd vote for Bachmann, Perry, Cain or even feckless Huntsman any day to keep BO from another four years.

Whatever reservations you have about Mitt, he is nothing compared to BO and the dangers he brings to the American way of life. Some people root against the team that knocks their team out of the tournament for no other reason than they hurt their feelings. I'm sorry you're sore at Mitt, but that's a poor reason to bypass him and on principle vote for a guaranteed loser in the election. A higher principle is at stake: WE CANNOT ALLOW OBAMA TO GET REELECTED!

If you knew the future back in 1976 and you were a Libertarian, don't you think you'd go ahead and vote for Gerald Ford to prevent Jimmy Carter from being president rather than vote for the Libertarian nominee, knowing ahead of time that Jimmy would be a disasterous president?

Well I know the future of another Obama term and it's not pretty. A President Romney will be a far cry better than four more years of an uninhibited Obama with nothing to lose. There won't be a President Gingrich, President Paul, or President Jones, Smith or Brown. Its either going to be President Romney or President Obama. You better accept it and work to get Romney elected.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

It's a perfect analogy. I voted for Santorum. Romney wasn't my choice. But if he is the nominee, and it looks that's the way its going to be, I'll take him any day of the year over BO. I will not vote for some guy from the Constitutional Party, someone whose platform I'd probably be nearly 100% in agreement with because he doesnt have a chance to defeat Obama. I'd vote for Paul or Gingrich. I'd vote for Bachmann, Perry, Cain or even feckless Huntsman any day to keep BO from another four years.

Whatever reservations you have about Mitt, he is nothing compared to BO and the dangers he brings to the American way of life. Some people root against the team that knocks their team out of the tournament for no other reason than they hurt their feelings. I'm sorry you're sore at Mitt, but that's a poor reason to bypass him and on principle vote for a guaranteed loser in the election. A higher principle is at stake: WE CANNOT ALLOW OBAMA TO GET REELECTED!

If you knew the future back in 1976 and you were a Libertarian, don't you think you'd go ahead and vote for Gerald Ford to prevent Jimmy Carter from being president rather than vote for the Libertarian nominee, knowing ahead of time that Jimmy would be a disasterous president?

Well I know the future of another Obama term and it's not pretty. A President Romney will be a far cry better than four more years of an uninhibited Obama with nothing to lose. There won't be a President Gingrich, President Paul, or President Jones, Smith or Brown. Its either going to be President Romney or President Obama. You better accept it and work to get Romney elected.

I didn't ever say I wouldn't vote for Romney in the General. He doesn't have his full delegate count and it isn't proven, as yet, that he will reach it. He could lose by 100 and then the delegates can vote their conscience. I'm voting for Newt in the Texas Primary because it's not over yet. If Romney wins the general, then I will vote for him. I don't have to vote on principle in the General, I just have to hold my nose and vomit after I cast the vote.

Anyway, we aren't getting anywhere in this argument and I'm so busy I don't know if I found this rope or lost a horse. lol!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

While I'm sure that there are a lot of women who abuse the system, I'm fine with my tax dollars helping out single mothers who have small children who need care. In most cases, children are better off with a parent taking care of them. They don't need to be dumped on strangers' laps. The leaky faucet in federal spending isn't going to be fixed by cutting single women off from their benefits. It should be limited and monitored, but it shouldn't be cut. A better answer would be to make sure they don't have a "baby daddy" in the house who they aren't married to so they aren't getting welfare that's really a recreational/luxury fund instead of something they actually NEED.

I know a couple who has been living together for YEARS because if they get married they will lose their benefits. That's idiotic. There should be a household income limit for qualifying for benefits and it shouldn't matter if the couple is married or not. People shouldn't be punished for getting married. If their shared household income fits into the income bracket for that amount of dependents, then let them keep their benefits. The simple act of getting married shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not they receive benefits.

Where I stray from some of the conservatives (I guess) is that I don't MIND my tax dollars going to help people who truly need help. I'm just sick of the government taking my tax dollars and putting them in pet projects instead of where they should be going. I have no bone to pick with single mothers or anyone who is poor enough to need housing or assistance with groceries.

Let's not hate on single Mothers who need government assistance; let's push for doing away with earmarks and other obvious money-sieves.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

While I'm sure that there are a lot of women who abuse the system, I'm fine with my tax dollars helping out single mothers who have small children who need care. In most cases, children are better off with a parent taking care of them. They don't need to be dumped on strangers' laps. The leaky faucet in federal spending isn't going to be fixed by cutting single women off from their benefits. It should be limited and monitored, but it shouldn't be cut. A better answer would be to make sure they don't have a "baby daddy" in the house who they aren't married to so they aren't getting welfare that's really a recreational/luxury fund instead of something they actually NEED.

I know a couple who has been living together for YEARS because if they get married they will lose their benefits. That's idiotic. There should be a household income limit for qualifying for benefits and it shouldn't matter if the couple is married or not. People shouldn't be punished for getting married. If their shared household income fits into the income bracket for that amount of dependents, then let them keep their benefits. The simple act of getting married shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not they receive benefits.

Where I stray from some of the conservatives (I guess) is that I don't MIND my tax dollars going to help people who truly need help. I'm just sick of the government taking my tax dollars and putting them in pet projects instead of where they should be going. I have no bone to pick with single mothers or anyone who is poor enough to need housing or assistance with groceries.

Let's not hate on single Mothers who need government assistance; let's push for doing away with earmarks and other obvious money-sieves.

I'm with you, Bratti. So many men are leaving their responsibility walking away from fatherhood. It's difficult for women to work and juggle a child or children. And, yes, she holds some culpability as well, but mistakes are going to happen and when single women are left holding the bag, they need our help.

We have a huge moral crises in this country, which breeds lawlessness. It puts the country on a downward spiral. It's a huge mess with so many problems, right and wrong solutions - it makes my head spin.

Being we are such a politically correct nation, which is killing us, our only solution is God and we aren't always allowed to mention that.