1 - 9
This article completely ignores the history of the last nomination fight...there was about a 30%, (I'm being charitable) core of support for Mitt...and the rest of the party made up and "anyone but Mitt" block that was never able to unite around an alternative. Seriously? we have to move on!
yeah, because he was such a smashing success as Governor of Massachusetts, Hi signature legislation as governor was so successful it lead to Obamacare, and his last two presidential runs were such smashing successes! PLEASE!!! (End Sarcasm)
OR....you COULD use the new federally mandated abortion coverage and kill the baby til the government can get this sorted out. !@#$ idiots!
He'd be a great President, because he did such an AWESOME job turning around California! NOT!!!
In response to:

Rep. Ryan Speaks Out About 2012 Loss

Ace43 Wrote: Jun 17, 2013 11:52 AM
Of course it couldn't possibly be that Romney ran an uninspiring milquetoast campaign devoid of vision, ideology, passion or principle!!! Hey Paul....Obamacare has been opposed by 60% of the American People since it passed....You didn't fail because people think Obamacare is great....or because they've been duped by Obama, you lost because of your flaccid and impotent campaign and failure to articulate why Romney would be a better President than Obama...especially since Obama passed the Romneycare Law on a national level. Why would anyone think Romney was serious about repealing Obamacare on the national level when every time the subject was brought up Romney was reduced to mumbling about what a great deal Romneycare was for Massachusetts This is what passes for intellectual rigor and superior tactics and strategy in today's Republicrat Party and no doubt we'll have more of the same in 2016 and we'll be playing Hail To The Chief for Hillary when they're done. bring on Jeb Bush three and lets go down in flames together ya'll!!!
This is one Republican who says... "No No...By all means...PLEASE GO AWAY MITT!!!"
Did Roberts say how he'd rule if the mandate comes up after it's been properly presented under the Anti-Injuction act is the question?
I don't think so....if I read what Byron is saying right...the Anti-Injunction Act would only apply to the tax imposed by Obamacare for not participating in the insurance pool....if this is so....I would think a class action law suit could be filed once someone is penalized for not participating in the market in 2014 giving us a whole new crack it this
This begs the question then....since Roberts ruled it wasn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause because it is a tax....and since the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits suit before someone actually pays the tax....doesn't this mean we can take another crack at this in 2014 once the taxes go into full effect?
1 - 9