or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fury; Rand Paul Goes All Out For Republican Elite Romney.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 86
Thread Starter 

It's an understatement to say Ron Paul supporters and one time Rand Paul supporters are upset at Rand Paul's decision to back Romney. Thy're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more.

 

This may well prove a terrible mistake for Rand and the Republican Party. They may have voted themselves in an election for Romney, but Rand Paul coming out for Romney now may very well put many of them off.

 

Here are some of the hundreds expressing their disgust online- http://www.dailypaul.com/238449/rand-paul-endorses-mitt-romney#comments

 

What a bunch of BS

We all stay here to the bitter end, the delegates fight like crazy to go to the convention, we donate to every money bomb and Rand does this. I know he has to do what he has to do but it just feels like a kick in the teeth to everyone that has fought so hard for so long! It just makes me feel really used and sad :-(

 

A new name

"Rand Iscariot" ... "The Betrayer"

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

 

emalvini's picture

I'm Freaking Confused Here..

Are we going for the delegates or are we going to endorse Romulan. I will not compromise on my beliefs.

I will not vote for that Romulan Son of a b#tch!

Ron paul gives an outstanding speech in Texas and then his son endorses Romulan..

God damn it! I'm so freaking confused and angry now, I can't even sh#t!

Stick with your principles

Rand is sticking with the party.

 

Got to ask

Is siding with the less evil still siding with evil?
Rand has now divided us.
Some will and some will not.
Honest methods have failed against the tyranny.
Lesson learned.
1776

PS Some are mad as hell and are even MORE determined to bring change with change.

 

Alex Jones...

Right now is calling out Ron Paul right now. Wow! Never thought I would see the day. God Bless AJ for having some balls!

 

Well play, Rand Paul

By endorsing Romney, you totally pissed off Ron Paul supporter. In such way, Romney might be also lost to Obama this year. So It will definitely help Rand Paul in 2016.

Ron Paul, the Thomas Jefferson in 21st century

 

tanjroy's picture

Don't Forget

 

That's it...he's done. Flip him over and FORK him now.

What? Did they manage to chip this dude?

I had issue with some of Rand's position's in the past.

But after hearing this I almost blew lunch.

What about the NDAA that Mitt said he would have signed?

What about his past "liberal" record, and all the flip-flopping and outright lies.

If Rand believes Mitt for a minute, he simply has not been around long enough to know what a silver tongued liar Mitt is.

As far as I am concerned Rand can step down as spokesperson for the Campaign For Liberty right now.

He can just go take an ariel attempt at intercourse with a rotating perforated pastry.

If you catch my drift.

RON PAUL or NOT AT ALL

 

Is there a deal for Romney to pick Rand Paul as VP?

Is it possible Rand Paul made this endorsement in exchange for Romney agreeing to make him his running mate? Let's hope so, because I can't think of anything else Romney or the Republican establishment could realistically offer that would make this monumental sellout remotely worth it.

Such a deal could look pretty attractive from the Romney camp's point of view. If Romney is the nominee, he has to do something to win over Ron Paul's libertarian supporters as well as the right-wing Tea Party folks, and keep them from defecting to Gary Johnson and the Libertarians or to the Constitution Party, or he's in trouble. Who on the ticket other than Rand Paul could conceivably help with *both* these crucial constituencies, and potentially keep Ron Paul from endorsing Johnson or someone else, or running as an independent?

Personally I still wouldn't vote for a Romney-Paul ticket, especially not if the Paul is Rand. I'm just putting the theory out there as a possible explanation of the endorsement.

 

Yesterday

Dr Paul gave a very clear message
"Whats the point in coming together for all the wrong reasons?"

I guess his son didn't get that message, and is willing to "come together" because its politically beneficial to him.

 

I'll say this; Rand Paul

I'll say this; Rand Paul knows his dad's supporters are not going to vote for Romney (even with his endorsement). I don't in my heart think Rand would fold either unless he or his family were threatened or there's a reason for all this. Dr. Paul said yesterday that there hasn't been a convention since 1976 in which a nominee was actually voted on in the proper way. He said since 1976, over 200 (was it million or billion) dollars has been taken from tax payers to pay for a nominating party; not an actual convention to decide who the nominee will be. This may be to prove that it's not about who they endorse. It's about the people supporting what we believe in and that's the principles that made this country great. If Rand or even Ron Paul endorsed a candidate who goes against our freedoms, why in the world would we support them? We wouldn't. I believe Rand knows that. This may all be to prove a point. He can endorse all day long and the delegates are not going to follow suit. Watch. He and his family know that this movement cannot be stopped by a neocon president (even if he wins). We don't believe Romney because he has not stood firm on anything. And because of the strong-arm tactics by the establishment GOP (and the vote/election fraud), we still won't vote for him. Or at least I won't. Sorry.

 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Are all the people who wiped Rand's behind over his support of Iran sanctions spouting this nonsense now? Is this move even CLOSE to good?!

 

No Panic Here

I cannot imagine Rand did this without Ron's approval. For now, I will assume this was a mutual and well-thought out decision that was determined to be in the best interests of the liberty movement.

Assume?

Well you know what happens when you ASS-ume?

They sold us out and there is no other way to look at it.
Get you head our of you arse and see the light.

“ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property.” ~Lysander Spooner

 

Rand has intercourse with Satin

Well how do you see it then?
I see NO priciple here.

“ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property.” ~Lysander Spooner

Well Satins no Silk but it'll do

lol

 

UNSUBSCRIBED

Just Unsubscribed from Rand's email updates. I have no need for them.

 

Been skeptical bout rand for a while now

I'll lop him into the pile with the rest of the washington dead heads from now on.

 

Could not finish

Sen Paul, do you know why so many Democrats who disagree with your Dad on lots of issues still respect him? Because he stands his ground, even if it's unpopular. You and Romney agree on many issues? Thanks for that tidbit. You can enjoy my vote when Hell reaches 0 Kelvin. If the dark side has cookies, I hope the milk is sour. You will never. Never. Get my vote.

Well said. I have yet to

Well said. I have yet to meet a Democrat or leftist who respects Rand. I have met quite a few who respect Ron. Rand can never be elected president. He is no reliable base or crossover appeal. Not even in his own party.

 

Not that surprising

He has always been "friendly" with all sides. Maybe he watched his dad fight his entire life "by the rules" and not "winning".

I don't know what to say about this. Rand is really pissing me off right now.

Did those words ENDORSE ROMNEY actually come out of his mouth?

**** MITT ROMNEY!!!!

I already voted for Ron Paul in California and even if Rand backs him, hell even if ron paul himself backs mittens, he will NEVER get my vote.

All this is showing me is, no matter how you raise kids they can still grow up to dissapoint the shit out of you but hey thats a free society right?

You don't teach them WHAT to think but rather HOW to think for themselves and hope they come out alright but an endorsement for mittens, TRAITORS every last one of them.

 

There is deal being made here...

There is some kind of deal being made here.
whether its by force or voluntary I can not be sure.

Remember that Presidents often do big favors in-return for big favors...
Its likely our young senator will be elevated to a key position, Watch and see.

I have a wait and see

I have a wait and see attitude. I am not going to be a Rand basher because I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.

yup - and that's called...

..selling your vote - or typical politician.

Tsk tsk tsk Rand.

 

rand's endorsement of romney

The more I think about it, the more I think rand did this against his father's wishes and that's why he (rand) looked so somber. That would also explain Dr. Paul's statement about being asked to speak of unity but what good is unity if it's for the wrong reasons.

 

ugh

booooooooo

 

Don't get ahead of your blockers...

In football you learn real quick if you are a running back not to get ahead of your blockers. Rand has seemed to forget who got him where he is. We seem to not be on his list of friends now who he would choose to sit down and have a conversation with but rather he has decided he can dance with the Devil and change the Devil. The Devil never changes but he does change you. I have donated my $2500.00 dollars to the Ron Paul bid to be President of these United States.

I donated $800.00 to the Rand Paul run for the Senate in Kentucky. I have to agree with Alex Jones on this one and want people in the Liberty movement to know that my money will not going to anymore campaigns for Rand Paul. I just don't think he will get much more support unless he retracts his steps by endorsing Romney.

Just my two cents but I do have my opinion.

Very sorry about that $800

In hindsight, it could have gone to somebody who won't endorse mass murder. Jeez, what an embarrassment.

~ http://www.dailypaul.com/238449/rand-paul-endorses-mitt-romney#comments

 

 

Your thoughts?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 86

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.  

Anyone else got any thoughts then?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #4 of 86

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.

post #5 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe Luby View Post

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.

But don't you think that there would have been more chance of Ron and Rand Paul supporters voting for Romney as the better of two evils, if Rand had not endorsed Romney? They feel betrayed, just like they would if Ron Paul came out and endorsed Romney. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth which sparks revolt. 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #6 of 86
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #7 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 86
Thread Starter 

START WATCHING AT 4 MINS IN (blip in video at about 6 mins) to see how Ron Paul has been secretly working for Romney. Now Rands endorsed Romney it all makes even more sense- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR3MLpz2gt4&feature=player_embedded#

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #10 of 86
Thread Starter 

The man who helped launch Rand Paul's political career and who helped raise millions of dollars for Ron Paul's campaigns has woken up and now speaks out against the betrayal of tens of thousands of supporters hard work and fundraising- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UpoizaEBr98

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #11 of 86

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.
 

post #12 of 86

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

post #13 of 86
Thread Starter 

Comments and videos flooding out now, many, nearly all, feeling betrayed and angry- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yum730hd-0&feature=related

 

 

 

Comment by methos- "My hat Off to Mr Tarpley. It seems that Ron and Rand have decided to dance with the devil." ~ http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-dont-destroy-yourself/comment-page-3/#comments

 

 

Millions spent for WHAT!

After millions of dollars were spent and this is what we get from rand paul!WHAT A JERK!People are totally PISSED at this man and they sure have a right to be!

 

 

Please Take This Post Off The Front Page

Someone please take this post off the top of the front page..the negative votes are getting so. large its starting to poke President Paul's right eye out on the graphic of him to the right side of the post!

 

 

What is in the mind of Ron Paul now?

Its time for Ron Paul to speak up. Everyone feels betrayed and the wind has been knocked out of many by reading these comments. Ron Paul needs to address this situation and quick to keep up the confidence of this army. He admits he does not have enough delegates to pull off a win and now Rand Romney I mean Rand Paul endorses Mittens.
It's time for the revolution commander step up and take charge before this revolution becomes a diss allusion.

http://www.dailypaul.com/238449/rand-paul-endorses-mitt-romney#comments


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/9/12 at 5:11am
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #14 of 86

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

True, he's clearly no Ron Paul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcjYHauTQjE

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #16 of 86

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

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. 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.

 

Skip to 2.57 mins in this video to see what's really motivating this turncoat- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drXbQyfkEUs

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #18 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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 View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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 View Post

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 View Post

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.  lol.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

 

Seriously?

 

Geez.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Please explain how they differ on NDAA.
Quote:
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.  

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

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 View Post


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.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

They agree on that issue, don't they?

How do they differ on the Federal Reserve? 
Quote:
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.

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #25 of 86

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.

post #26 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe Luby View Post

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.

 

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe Luby View Post

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

 

That's debatable.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


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. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #30 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #32 of 86
Thread Starter 

Listen to how Rand Paul used the Liberty/Patriot movement for essential funds to win his senate seat. These were hardcore Ron Paul supporters. Now he's joking/mocking that they think they "own" the internet. Start at 3 mins in- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klY2eoxImrc

 

I personally like Ron P. I must admit that wasn't the case a few years ago, but I get where he's coming from and what it is he's trying to do now, and that he is what he says he is through and through,and that makes him a rarity. I disagree with him on issues, many of them too important for me to vote for him, but I agree on many too, that have the potential to re-shape, indeed save America from becoming a corporate run, de-soveigntized police state, a far cry from what Americas potential has always been.

 

I err on the side that RP has done his best over the last few months, I don't extend that trust to Rand. At some point I hope RP speaks up against his son. If anyone has the integrity to do that, it's Ron Paul. 


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/11/12 at 4:12pm
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #33 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

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:  

 

 

 

Quote:
...and why it makes no difference to me which one of them is in office.

 

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. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 86

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:

Romney is a central-banking Keynesian corporatist who supports The Fed and (some, though admittedly not all) bailouts. Romney believes that economic stimulus can be engineered by government spending. His presumed cabinet and advisors will, like the current administration, be filled with Wall Street lobbyists (both have been heavily supported by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, though Romney has a long way to go to reach Obama’s 2008 totals). Romney does not understand that price inflation is merely, and always, a by-product of monetary inflation (expansion of the money base). He is supportive of automatic increases to the minimum wage. He agitates about foreign countries “stealing jobs” and threatens free trade by continuing or erecting protectionist policies. He is willing to wage war, even humanitarian and so-called “preventive” war, and will leave “all options on the table.” Indeed, he plans to increase military spending and his budgets will continue the current trend of outrageous expansion. He is a drug-warrior supportive of prohibition and passing legislation against peaceful people for their “own good.” He opposes online gambling. He presided over one of the first “cap and trade” legislations in the country. He supports the Patriot Act and the NDAA. He’d continue, and perhaps even intensify (if that’s even possible), the current administration’s harsh immigration and deportation policy. Like Obama, Romney supports REAL ID. He supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” and will continue “extraordinary rendition.” He wants to increase Guantanamo’s capacity and keep prisoners from legal counsel. Romney may be willing to make tiny tax cuts, but he does not question the legitimacy of the income tax. And, of course, we all know that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. He wants to increase subsidies to “power generation, fuel cells, nanotechnology, and materials science” industries. 

Any of that sound familiar? It should, as it’s essentially Obama’s record.

I will grant that there are a handful of ways in which Romney is maybe marginally an improvement over Obama, but those tiny differences cannot trump the statist whoppers listed above.

tumblr_m5ifenCB5l1qb97lf.png

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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:
Romney is a central-banking Keynesian corporatist who supports The Fed and (some, though admittedly not all) bailouts.

 

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.  

 

Quote:
 Romney believes that economic stimulus can be engineered by government spending.

 

That is utterly false.  

 

Quote:
His presumed cabinet and advisors will, like the current administration, be filled with Wall Street lobbyists (both have been heavily supported by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, though Romney has a long way to go to reach Obama’s 2008 totals).

 

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

 

Quote:
Romney does not understand that price inflation is merely, and always, a by-product of monetary inflation (expansion of the money base).

 

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

 

 

 

Quote:
He is supportive of automatic increases to the minimum wage.

 

Link?  I haven't read that.  

 

Quote:
He agitates about foreign countries “stealing jobs” and threatens free trade by continuing or erecting protectionist policies.

 

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.  

 

 

 

Quote:
He is willing to wage war, even humanitarian and so-called “preventive” war, and will leave “all options on the table.”

 

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

 

Quote:
Indeed, he plans to increase military spending and his budgets will continue the current trend of outrageous expansion.

 

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.  

 

Quote:
 He is a drug-warrior supportive of prohibition and passing legislation against peaceful people for their “own good.” He opposes online gambling.

 

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.  

 

 

Quote:
He presided over one of the first “cap and trade” legislations in the country.

 

Politifact disagrees.

 

 

 

Quote:
Our ruling

Santorum’s ad says a machine-gun wielding Romney is firing mud to hide his own support of "job-killing cap and trade."

While Romney appears to have favored cap and trade in the past, his actions as governor better prove his skepticism of the policy than his support for it. When he could have signed it into law, he declined. And more recently, Romney has repeatedly said he’s opposed to it. And when asked for evidence of Romney's support for cap and trade, the Santorum campaign failed to produce any. We rate the claim False.

 

 

Quote:
 He supports the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

 

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.  

 

 

Quote:
He’d continue, and perhaps even intensify (if that’s even possible), the current administration’s harsh immigration and deportation policy.

 

lol.gif  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: 

 

 

 

Quote:

A porous border allows illegal immigrants to enter the United States, violent cartel members and terrorists possibly among them. Certain states and municipalities grant benefits to illegal immigrants that act as magnets that draw illegal immigrants across the border. At the same time that unskilled workers are able to come here illegally, we do not grant enough visas to high-skill job creators and innovators seeking to come here legally. The system requires us to send away the great majority of the over 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities. And it is too difficult for businesses to secure visas for foreign workers to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills.

 

Read the specifics http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Like Obama, Romney supports REAL ID.

 

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

 

 

 

Quote:
He supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” and will continue “extraordinary rendition.” He wants to increase Guantanamo’s capacity and keep prisoners from legal counsel.

 

Good.  Obama doesn't support any of that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Romney may be willing to make tiny tax cuts, but he does not question the legitimacy of the income tax.

 

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.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And, of course, we all know that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare.

 

Loosely, but they are two totally different bills.  

 

 

Quote:

He wants to increase subsidies to “power generation, fuel cells, nanotechnology, and materials science” industries. 

 

 

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

 

 

Quote:

Any of that sound familiar? It should, as it’s essentially Obama’s record.

I will grant that there are a handful of ways in which Romney is maybe marginally an improvement over Obama, but those tiny differences cannot trump the statist whoppers listed above.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 86

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 View Post

That is utterly false.

 

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

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

 

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

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 View Post

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

 

lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

Either way, the government funding these is not bad.

 

Really? Wow.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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 View Post

 

 

 

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:

lol.gif

 

 

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #40 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 EconomicsExposed: Romney is a Closet Keynesian and Variations on a Corporatist Theme.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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

 

Amazed? No. Disappointed? Yes.


Edited by MJ1970 - 6/12/12 at 3:10pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fury; Rand Paul Goes All Out For Republican Elite Romney.