Fury; Rand Paul Goes All Out For Republican Elite Romney.

My thoughts are you're spamming your own thread in the opening post, and that your sole reason for doing so is to make it appear that Ron Paul supporters will cause a civil war within the GOP.  

Mittens is a rino, but the other choice is Obummer.  America as we know it will end if Obummer gets 4 more years.  Folks need to support Mittens, like him or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I don't think I could bring myself to endorse a man who agrees with Obama on nearly all of the issues that are most important to me. I sincerely hope this is a strategic move on Rand's part and not a compromise of principle.
It doesn't change things for me - I will not vote for Romney or Obama.

We've discussed this.  You will be voting for Romney or Obama.  You just don't realize it yet.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

We've discussed this.  You will be voting for Romney or Obama.  You just don't realize it yet.  

You've apparently discussed this with yourself.

There is no meaningful difference between Romney and Obama.

YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO DAM RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. BY CALLING HIM  DUMB NAMES. I guess you listen to M.S.
 

Screw Mittons he is a weasel with no backbone at all. I would never vote for this man.

People feeling betrayed about what exactly?

Is it that people have incorrectly assumed that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are the same person? They have exactly the same goals and values?

Perhaps there is some betrayal. Perhaps not. This appears to be entirely about Rand Paul and his plans and aspirations and views.

Maybe he thinks he can change things from the inside (I believe that's probably naive, but if he can more power to him). Perhaps he's a typical politician. Not sure. In politics things are not always as they seem.

But why is this surprising?

Are you an exact clone of your parents? Do you agree with them (perhaps strongly) on many things but disagree (perhaps equally strongly or even just a little bit) with them on others? What about grown kids (if you have any)?

I know I agree with a lot of what my Dad's positions are and disagree quite strongly on others. My kids share some of my same views but differ on others or even chose to take different approaches in how they execute on those ideas.

The other possibility here is that Rand Paul is taking a much longer and perhaps more practical view here. Maybe he's crazy like a fox. Maybe he's cut a deal for the VP slot and expects to become President in 2020 - 2028. Maybe he's a bit more clever than it seems. Maybe he wants to try and work the system from the inside. Ron Paul has tried (and failed in many ways). Ron has moved on to being an educator at this point. Maybe Rand thinks he can change it from within. Or maybe he thinks he can just move the needle a little bit or get someone's foot to let up on the accelerator that is driving us headlong toward a cliff.

I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Look, he's only got where he is because he's Ron Paul's son, and now he's selling out. Full stop, end of conversation.

I don't believe that you get to declare your interpretation of things as The Truth and then declare the conversation to be over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

You can argue all you want that he's just trying to change things from within, but no one with even half a brain would fall for that crap.

I'm not saying that's what is happening. I'm offering that as a possibility. I'm simply pointing out that, in politics, things aren't always as they seem to be. For example, some people still think that Obama is all about "hope", "change" and making this a better country. But anyone with more than half a brain can see that's not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You've apparently discussed this with yourself.

 

There is no meaningful difference between Romney and Obama.

First, I've shown multiple times that this is simply not true.  There are major differences.  You simply want Romney to be even more different, like...oh...Ron Paul is. That's fine, but don't run around claiming they are the same.  

Secondly, you're missing the point of my statement.  Whether or not you consider Obama and Romney the same, you'll be voting for one of them.  Assuming you vote at all, your choices are: 

A) Romney

B) Obama

C) Third Party Candidate

We've already discussed how voting for C is really voting for B.  I realize you're going to try to argue otherwise, though that will sound just as silly now as it did then.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO DAM RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. BY CALLING HIM  DUMB NAMES. I guess you listen to M.S.
 

No one has called him names in this thread (at least, not that I saw), and usually not in others unless in jest.  WTF is M.S.??

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Screw Mittons he is a weasel with no backbone at all. I would never vote for this man.

So you criticize others for non-existent "name calling" and then call Romney a weasel with no backbone, as well as Mittons [sic].  Truly hilarious.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

People feeling betrayed about what exactly?

 

Is it that people have incorrectly assumed that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are the same person? They have exactly the same goals and values?

 

Perhaps there is some betrayal. Perhaps not. This appears to be entirely about Rand Paul and his plans and aspirations and views.

 

Maybe he thinks he can change things from the inside (I believe that's probably naive, but if he can more power to him). Perhaps he's a typical politician. Not sure. In politics things are not always as they seem.

I agree.  Rand and Ron are not the same person.  I've already gotten the impression that Rand Paul is more in the mainstream than his father.  In fact, I'd be much more comfortable supporting him as I perceive him to have many of Ron Paul's good traits and positions without some of "Crazy Uncle Ron" stuff.   Rand also seems more interested, as you note, in changing the system from the inside.  All that said, I was a bit surprised to see him endorse Romney. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

...without some of "Crazy Uncle Ron" stuff. 

Seriously?

Geez.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Seriously?

 

Geez.

Come on..you know exactly what I mean.  Ron Paul has made some pretty far-out statements and claims.  Do you disagree?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 


Please explain how they differ on NDAA.
You are wrong. A vote for the color green is not a vote for the color yellow. A vote for an apple is not a vote for an orange.

1.  This is what you always do.  You take one issue and claim it makes them the same.  Nice try.  

2.  I'm absolutely correct, and I think as much as you don't want to admit it, you know I'm right.  A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama in reality.  It splits the anti-Obama vote.  For proof, look at Ross Perot and the 1992 election.  Clinton would not have won that election without Perot.  If there is a similarly strong third party candidate, the same will occur.  You're voting Obama, Romney or no one.  It's that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Come on..you know exactly what I mean.  Ron Paul has made some pretty far-out statements and claims.  Do you disagree?

I will agree that some of Ron Paul's positions are outside of the mainstream. That's doesn't make them crazy or even wrong. You, like others strongly wedded to the mainstream of thought, seem to believe that "outside of the mainstream" or "far our" is the same as crazy (and probably wrong).

It's Romney or Obama. 

The more conservatives cling to "principal" the more likely we have 4 more years of Obama. 

More Obama will destroy the country.  Romney isn't what we want, but he's better than what we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moe Luby 

Romney isn't what we want, but he's better than what we have.

That's debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 


They agree on that issue, don't they?
How do they differ on the Federal Reserve? 
No. You are wrong. A vote for a cat is not a vote for a dog, no matter how much you want it to be so.
A vote for Romney is, however, a vote for the status quo. And if you will answer my questions about Romney's duplicity and similarities to Obama honestly you will see that.

Yes, I believe they do agree.  They differ on the Fed's actions, though they both apparently support its existence.  This doesn't make them the same. 

As for the rest, keep on sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la la la la LAAAA!"   Keep it up with the semantics and stupid analogies.  You voting for a third party helps Obama, who is the status quo. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Yes, I believe they do agree.  They differ on the Fed's actions, though they both apparently support its existence.  This doesn't make them the same. 

 

As for the rest, keep on sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la la la la LAAAA!"   Keep it up with the semantics and stupid analogies.  You voting for a third party helps Obama, who is the status quo. 

You admit they agree on NDAA, which "authorizes" indefinite detention of American citizens without due process in violation of the 4th Amendment and habeas corpus.

How, exactly, do they differ on the Fed's actions?

Carry on with your ridiculous "a vote for x is really a vote for y" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You admit they agree on NDAA, which "authorizes" indefinite detention of American citizens without due process in violation of the 4th Amendment and habeas corpus.

 

How, exactly, do they differ on the Fed's actions?

 

Carry on with your ridiculous "a vote for x is really a vote for y" argument.

I'm not going to get trapped in tit-for-tat distractions.  Obama and Romney are much different as I've already outlined.  Do you need me to do it again for you?  

As for voting, I really fail to see why you're being so stubborn on this point.  Surely you can understand the reasoning I've put forth.  I realize you don't like that voting for a third party ends up helping Obama (hell...neither do I).  I respect the fact that you want to support someone closer to your views and principles.  But I don't see why an obviously intelligent and informed person like yourself refuses to acknowledge something that is practically common sense.  Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you should never vote third party.  I'm saying in this situation it clearly helps Obama.  And even if you really do think Obama and Romney are more similar than different, I can't imagine you'd like four more years of Barry Soetero instead of Mitt Romney.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I'm not going to get trapped in tit-for-tat distractions.  Obama and Romney are much different as I've already outlined.  Do you need me to do it again for you?  

 

As for voting, I really fail to see why you're being so stubborn on this point.  Surely you can understand the reasoning I've put forth.  I realize you don't like that voting for a third party ends up helping Obama (hell...neither do I).  I respect the fact that you want to support someone closer to your views and principles.  But I don't see why an obviously intelligent and informed person like yourself refuses to acknowledge something that is practically common sense.  Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you should never vote third party.  I'm saying in this situation it clearly helps Obama.  And even if you really do think Obama and Romney are more similar than different, I can't imagine you'd like four more years of Barry Soetero instead of Mitt Romney.  

Alright, then, let's be a little more specific on the actions of the Fed: how do they differ on the bailouts?

I'm trying to help you understand why I see no meaningful difference between Romney and Obama, why I won't vote for either of them, and why it makes no difference to me which one of them is in office. And I'm trying to make it easy for you by bringing up specific points for discussion.

Now you can either engage in the discussion with me and convince me that Romney is different enough from Obama to justify supporting him, or you can continue to regurgitate the establishment rhetoric and promote the false dilemma.

The choice is yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Alright, then, let's be a little more specific on the actions of the Fed: how do they differ on the bailouts?

 

I'm trying to help you understand why I see no meaningful difference between Romney and Obama, why I won't vote for either of them, and why it makes no difference to me which one of them is in office. And I'm trying to make it easy for you by bringing up specific points for discussion.

 

Now you can either engage in the discussion with me and convince me that Romney is different enough from Obama to justify supporting him, or you can continue to regurgitate the establishment rhetoric and promote the false dilemma.

 

The choice is yours.

What I've been trying to make clear is that the Fed discussion is besides the point.  Even if they were in absolute lock step on this issue, they are not the same on a host of other issues.   Now, let me take this point:  

Do you actually feel that way?  I have a hard time believing that.  Clearly Romney is better for the country, even if he changed very little (as we've already discussed...it's the perception and rhetoric that often restore confidence).   I'd ask you to reconsider that statement and evaluate whether you actually mean it.  Romney could be everything his opponents claim he is, and he'd still be infinitely better than Obama.  

One thing I am not trying to do is promote a false dilemma.  I'm simply being realistic.  I'm not trying to convince you to support Romney, either.  Rather, I'm asking you to just acknowledge that if you vote your conscience here and support a more libertarian candidate, your vote will be helping Obama.  

Let me explain a bit further...perhaps it will make sense.   It's not that third parties always help Democrats, or that any third party would help Obama.  It's this situation and the nature of what third parties often are.  Take Ron Paul.  If he ran as an independent, he'd mainly attract libertarian voters, center-right voters, Constitutionalists (so to speak) and people disaffected with politics...agreed?   Now, what do these groups have in common?  The answer is they are not going to support Obama or most Democrats to begin with.  In the absence of a third party, they are much more likely to Republican (in fact many probably were Republicans previously. Therefore, if they vote third party instead of sucking it up and voting for Romney, their votes are being "taken away" from his potential total..thereby helping Obama.  

Obviously this logic does not apply in all situations.  If there was a center-left or left third party candidate, that would theoretically help Romney, as it works both ways.  It's the nature of who the third party candidate is (and who his supporters are) that's at issue.  In this case, I doubt that there will be a viable third party candidate anyway, so in reality our discussion is probably moot.  The third party candidate is unlikely to attract enough support to make a difference.  But if it was Ron Paul, it clearly would.  Paul knows this, which is why he's not running as a third party.  He'd rather have Romney than Obama, too.  Or so it seems. 

SDW2001, I disagree that Ron Paul not running as a third party candidate is a de facto endorsement of the Republican nominee. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008, and I have a feeling he will endorse a third party candidate this time around.

As for your continued insistance that Romney will somehow be better than Obama, I think the following excerpt from a blog post highlights many of the same concerns I have:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

SDW2001, I disagree that Ron Paul not running as a third party candidate is a de facto endorsement of the Republican nominee. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008, and I have a feeling he will endorse a third party candidate this time around.

 

As for your continued insistance that Romney will somehow be better than Obama, I think the following excerpt from a blog post highlights many of the same concerns I have:

 

 

He is not a Keynesian corporatist.  His is a capitalist.  Yes, he supports the Fed and some bailouts.  I am neutral on the Fed and for some of the bailouts, as are most people.  

That is utterly false.  

That doesn't make them bad choices, especially if they are economic advisors.  

Prove what Romney "understands."  We're not going to end the Fed anyway, so the discussion is moot.  

Link?  I haven't read that.  

Any documentation there?  He's not agitating, he's telling the truth.  Our business climate and the actions of countries like China are sending jobs overseas.  

Good.  He needs to be willing to do all of that.  

Federal Defense spending is near all-time lows as a percentage of the budget and GDP.  It's a Constitutionally mandated area.  We need an invincible military, lest we invite attack.  

He's hardly a "drug warrior," though I disagree with him on this issue to an extent. I don't care what he thinks of online gambling.  

Politifact disagrees.

Yes, those evil pieces of legislation.  Most of PATRIOT is not objectionable at all and the NDAA supposedly authorizes indefinite detention in certain circumstances (such as openly supporting terrorist organizations).  You'll find that most political candidates support these bills.  

  Does this administration even HAVE an immigration policy?  "Harsh?"  We are swarmed with illegal immigrants.  Romney has been clear on immigration, and is anything but "harsh" on the issue.  He simply wants the law followed.  Here, read a little: 

Good.  Real ID mostly sets federal standards for state-issues ID.  It does authorize national ID cards.  

Good.  Obama doesn't support any of that.  

He's "willing" to make more than "tiny" tax cuts. Either way, he's not the same as Obama here.  He's just not the same as Ron Paul, either.  

Loosely, but they are two totally different bills.  

From current levels?  I haven't heard that.  Either way, the government funding these is not bad.  

There are huge differences which we've already been through. You're just ignoring them. 

You only actually claimed he was different from Obama on 2 of those points: taxation and torture.

And the differences - if any - are minor.

Neither Romney nor Obama question the legitimacy of the income tax. They only differ on how much property the government should be able to plunder from the people.

And Obama's actions on torture and indefinite detention without due process contradict his campaign rhetoric. Therefore, he and Romney are in agreement.

On virtually all the other issues mentioned, you defend Romney's policies - which are all virtually the same as Obama's.

It's quite puzzling that you still insist they are so different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

He is not a Keynesian corporatist.  His is a capitalist.  Yes, he supports the Fed and some bailouts.

Yes he is. Wow. That you don't see that demonstrates your blindness to the problem. Your last sentence alone confirms this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That is utterly false.

I'm not sure it is "utterly false."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That doesn't make them bad choices, especially if they are economic advisors.

You're probably right. :no: :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're not going to end the Fed anyway, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end slavery anyway, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end female disenfranchisement, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end X war, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end Jim Crow laws, so the discussion is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

He's not agitating, he's telling the truth.  Our business climate and the actions of countries like China are sending jobs overseas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Good.  He needs to be willing to do all of that.

Then he can go wage war...and bring along everyone that he can persuade to go with him. I think you should go with him also since you're so gung ho about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Federal Defense spending is near all-time lows as a percentage of the budget and GDP.  It's a Constitutionally mandated area.  We need an invincible military, lest we invite attack.

So what if it is so low? That doesn't mean it is low. Yes it a constitutionally defined responsibility of the federal government, but this does not mean there is some minimum amount of spending mandated either. Oh dear. An "invincible military"? Boy we're pretty gung ho today aren't we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Most of PATRIOT is not objectionable at all and the NDAA supposedly authorizes indefinite detention in certain circumstances (such as openly supporting terrorist organizations).  You'll find that most political candidates support these bills.

Oh dear. Mostly not objectionable? Wow. Big fan of the police state huh?

So what if most political candidates support these bills? Does that make them right? Is that how you make up your mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We are swarmed with illegal immigrants.

Swarmed? Are you serious? Even at its estimated peak there were only 20M illegal immigrants in this country. Even if that figure is correct, it's only about 6.5% of the total population. I don't think a reasonable person would called that being "swarmed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Good.  Real ID mostly sets federal standards for state-issues ID.  It does authorize national ID cards.

Wow. Big fan of the police state huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Good.  Obama doesn't support any of that.

Wow. Big fan of the police state huh? You're starting to make the case that Romney might actually be worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Either way, the government funding these is not bad.

Really? Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

You only actually claimed he was different from Obama on 2 of those points: taxation and torture.

 

And the differences - if any - are minor.

 

Neither Romney nor Obama question the legitimacy of the income tax. They only differ on how much property the government should be able to plunder from the people.

 

And Obama's actions on torture and indefinite detention without due process contradict his campaign rhetoric. Therefore, he and Romney are in agreement.

 

On virtually all the other issues mentioned, you defend Romney's policies - which are all virtually the same as Obama's.

 

It's quite puzzling that you still insist they are so different.

Jazz:  We need a government of some kind.  That governments needs to be funded.  The revenue must come from somewhere, be it sales taxes or business taxes or poetry taxes or income taxes.  Romney may support an income tax, but in terms of a difference, he wants lower income taxes and lower capital gains taxes.  What you're arguing for is more dramatic change, which is fine.  But they are not the same on this point. 

Obama does not favor enhanced interrogation and has not used it.  He was prevented from closing Gitmo.  Romney favors keeping Gitmo and favors enhanced interrogation. Here again, they are different.  They also differ on: 

• Government spending
• Regulation
• Energy production and independence 
• Foreign Trade/Currency Manipulation

Those are just a few issues.  They don't touch on getting rid of Obama's radical cabinet and appointees (Napolitano, Holder, Geithner, Chu, Sibelius, various czars, etc) and penchant for class warfare.   

All that said, I'll remind you that even if you see Romney and Obama as the same, it doesn't change that fact that voting for a third party helps Obama.  You first claimed not to care about that, but I doubt that's actually true.  

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes he is. Wow. That you don't see that demonstrates your blindness to the problem. Your last sentence alone confirms this.

 

 

Then show me what makes him so.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I'm not sure it is "utterly false."

 

 

Show me it's true then.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

You're probably right. :no: :rolleyes:

 

 

 

We're not going to end slavery anyway, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end female disenfranchisement, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end X war, so the discussion is moot.

We're not going to end Jim Crow laws, so the discussion is moot.

 

I'm arguing for a realistic view.  Refusing to support someone because he doesn't want to end the Fed is ridiculous...especially when that person's opponent is Barack Obama. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

Then he can go wage war...and bring along everyone that he can persuade to go with him. I think you should go with him also since you're so gung ho about it.

 

Don't pull a BR with personal bullshit.  We need to be willing to go to war if needed.  We need to keep all options on the table.  Welcome to the way the world really works.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

So what if it is so low? That doesn't mean it is low. Yes it a constitutionally defined responsibility of the federal government, but this does not mean there is some minimum amount of spending mandated either. Oh dear. An "invincible military"? Boy we're pretty gung ho today aren't we?

 

It as nothing to do with being "gung ho."  It has to do with reality.  It has to do with learning the lessons of history.  Peace Through Strength works.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Oh dear. Mostly not objectionable? Wow. Big fan of the police state huh?

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth.  We don't live in a police state.  I'm simply saying that most parts of the bills are are fine.  Most of PATRIOT is simply revising old law to enable better cooperation between agencies...to enable law enforcement to keep up with technologies that didn't exist 30 years ago.  Other parts of the acts address the fact that we didn't have methods to deal with terrorist groups like AQ, legally speaking.  If you wish to point particular problems you have with the bills, then do so.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

So what if most political candidates support these bills? Does that make them right? Is that how you make up your mind?

 

 

No.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Swarmed? Are you serious? Even at its estimated peak there were only 20M illegal immigrants in this country. Even if that figure is correct, it's only about 6.5% of the total population. I don't think a reasonable person would called that being "swarmed."

 

Use whatever word you want.  We have a SERIOUS immigration problem in this country.  If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.  Illegal immigration costs billions of dollars, causes crime, overloads social services, schools, ERs and more.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Wow. Big fan of the police state huh?

 

 

 

Wow. Big fan of the police state huh? You're starting to make the case that Romney might actually be worse.

 

 

We need enhanced interrogation.  We need Gitmo.  It has nothing to do with a police state.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Really? Wow.

 

 

You're amazed that I think the government should fund investments in science and technology?  I'm starting to see why you're a Ron Paul supporter.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Jazz:  We need a government of some kind.  That governments needs to be funded.  The revenue must come from somewhere, be it sales taxes or business taxes or poetry taxes or income taxes.  Romney may support an income tax, but in terms of a difference, he wants lower income taxes and lower capital gains taxes.  What you're arguing for is more dramatic change, which is fine.  But they are not the same on this point. 

 

Obama does not favor enhanced interrogation and has not used it.  He was prevented from closing Gitmo.  Romney favors keeping Gitmo and favors enhanced interrogation. Here again, they are different.  They also differ on: 

 

• Government spending
• Regulation
• Energy production and independence 
• Foreign Trade/Currency Manipulation

 

Those are just a few issues.  They don't touch on getting rid of Obama's radical cabinet and appointees (Napolitano, Holder, Geithner, Chu, Sibelius, various czars, etc) and penchant for class warfare.   

 

All that said, I'll remind you that even if you see Romney and Obama as the same, it doesn't change that fact that voting for a third party helps Obama.  You first claimed not to care about that, but I doubt that's actually true.  

 

 

 

If Obama can get a disastrous piece of legislation like Obamacare through, he can certainly do something about torture and Gitmo...but he hasn't. What Obama SAYS is very different from what he DOES. Obama and Romney may not agree on rhetoric, but you have to look at their actions, too. When's the last time Obama called for an end to torture and closing Gitmo? It's been years, I'd guess. Apparently he has "evolved" on those issues.

Regarding taxes: Romney and Obama both believe in using government violence to plunder the people under the guise of "taxation". Differences over how much to steal from people doesn't make it any more or less of a crime. Either taxation is moral and legitimate or it is not. And it is not.

Government should not be able to do anything that you or I cannot do.

I cannot go to my neighbor's house and demand his property at gunpoint. Yet that is exactly what our government is doing - domestically and overseas - and neither Obama nor Romney see a problem with that. I do.

I cannot force my neighbor at gunpoint to eat what I consider to be healthy food and not ingest what I consider to be unhealthy. Yet that is exactly what our government is doing with the failed War on Drugs and other ridiculous laws. Neither Obama nor Romney see any problem with this. I do.

I don't know how else I can say it to you so that you understand how sincere I am, but for the umpteenth time: I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney does not have my support. Mitt Romney doesn't represent me. Mitt Romney doesn't speak for me. Mitt Romney doesn't have my vote. I cannot support a man who will not do what I believe is necessary to restore the republic.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

And don't blame me when Obama is reelected. Blame the Republicans for not having the guts to nominate someone of real substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Then show me what makes him so.

His support of the Fed alone makes him that. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

But here are some links: Romney’s Big Fat Wet Kiss to Keynesian Economics, Exposed: Romney is a Closet Keynesian and Variations on a Corporatist Theme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We need a government of some kind.

 

We need to be willing to go to war if needed.

 

We need to keep all options on the table.

 

We need enhanced interrogation.

 

We need Gitmo.

A whole string of question begging. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

It's not "enhanced interrogation," it's torture. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It has nothing to do with a police state.

Gitmo and what you advocate at Gitmo is all about a police state. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We don't live in a police state.

We're pretty close. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We have a SERIOUS immigration problem in this country. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

I'm not sure it is a SERIOUS illegal (or legal) immigration problem at a mere 6.5%. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You're amazed that I think the government should fund investments in science and technology?

Amazed? No. Disappointed? Yes.