Ron Paul, who I have the utmost respect for, was notorious for voting against earmarks when he would load up a bill with earmarks and once he knew the bill was doomed, would cast his "Nay" vote.....Paul has a lot of "politician" in him.....
What portion of the Bush Administration's foreign policy do you consider to be, "Socialist"? What part of Romney's rhetorical foreign policy do you consider to be "socialist"? On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:17 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > With all due respect, to suggest that there is no difference between the > Republican Party and the Democrat Party, or that there is no difference > between President Obama and Ron Paul, or President Obama and Mitt Romney, > or President Obama and Newt Gingrich is asinine, but yet you continue to > expound upon this theory day in and day out. > > > > I realize that the Rs TALK about being FOR A, B, C, D and E and AGAINST F, > G, H, I and J while the Ds TALK about being AGAINST A, B, C, D and E and > FOR F, G, H, I and J but with the exception of the RARE (temporary) bone > that is thrown, they work in concert to further the FASCISM that is endemic > in America. All these 'show issues' are put back in the closet until the > NEXT election cycle beckons for them. This 'trend' goes back PAST Roosevelt > and his embrace ... > > As we have seen -- rhetoric aside -- is an Obama administration that > merely picked up when the Bush administration left off ... picking up where > Mr. Bill had left off ... Socialist A and Socialist B. The Rs hail and > cheer Socialist A while the Ds despise him ... similarly, the Ds hail and > cheer Socialist B while the Rs despise him. All the while America gets > further fucked. > > What is it you imagine a Romney (who will not win) will do DIFFERENTLY? > You do realize that his Foreign Policy Advisors (for example) are ALL > retreads from Bush II? What type of revelations do you suppose these guys > have had? > > I made no claims that Ron Paul -- who, unlike MOST, has a long track > record to support his rhetoric -- was the same as Obama. > > > > During the Republican primaries, both Paul's and Romney's campaigns > broadcast prevaricate, outright untruthful statements against ALL other > candidates, ALL of which were conservatives. I have been involved in > politics all of my adult, professional career. I have never seen a > Republican Primary ever get this nasty, and up until 2012, I had never > seen Republicans turn on one another as I did during the 2012 Republican > Primary. This has not happened, in at least the last eight presidential > elections. > > > Let's see a LIST of these so-called 'untruthful' statements -- not merely > some veiled generalities. > Please DEFINE 'conservative' so we might have a basis upon which to > measure. > > THIS Primary Season required the establishment to provide distractions and > other bread and circuses in order to ensure THEIR chosen candidate was the > headliner. Not ONLY do we see this in the infomercials parading as debates, > but in the rampant fraud at the various caucus efforts. These guys cannot > WAIT for the Government 'take over' and 'control' of the internet. > > That you fail to recognize this Theater speaks volumes. > > > > As Ronald Reagan said back in 1979-1980, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a > fellow conservative"; and both Romney and Paul broke that rule. > > > AGAIN, let's see SUBSTANCE -- a definition of 'conservative' AND these > so-called 'untruths'. > > > > > If you think that Dr. Paul has a chance to win, something that even Dr. > Paul admits that he has no chance of doing, then this speaks volumes. Dr. > Paul made it quite clear back in February that his intent is/was to > influence the Republican Party Platform, and for that, I commend him. > > > Perhaps you might provide the actual statement HERE (with context) as well. > > > Regard$, > --MJ > > So the GOP, running mostly the last few years on abolishing Obamacare, > will nominate the candidate who pioneered Obamacare? -- Judge Andrew > Napolitano > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > What -- specifically -- made Paul's campaign 'despicable'? > What -- specifically -- made Romney's campaign 'despicable'? > > Suggesting that one's vote for who they WANT is a vote for the guy running > against the guy you want is meaningless fear mongering. If your team WANTED > those voters seeking an actual choice, they would have put forth a > candidate that differentiated himself in such a manner. That there is no > demonstrable difference between Socialist A and Socialist B .... > > Republicans have been faithfully supporting/voting for WHATEVER Candidate > the Republican establishment has paraded in front of them for decades -- > they count upon it. > > Of course Smith was merely exposing how no matter what is supposed to have > changed ... it merely remains the same. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "For libertarians, Obama versus Romney is going to be an exercise in > dullness. What's the difference between them other than party label?" -- > Jacob Hornberger > > > > > At 03:48 PM 4/23/2012, you wrote: > > <Sigh>........ > > I understand your thought process......I am sympathetic to it, despite the > despicable campaign that Paul (and Romney) ran this year. > > As cliche' as it might sound, (and I realize that this sounds "cliche'!"; > to abstain from voting, is literally another vote for the Obama > Administration, which they are counting upon. > > It's still too early to determine who will be the Republican nominee. I > strongly encourage you, and anyone else who holds the position that they > will abstain from voting unless there is a Third Party Candidate, and/or > Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, to NOT etch anything into stone, > and consider the consequences IF Obama wins a second term! > > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> > wrote: I'm voting Paul -- or not at all. --- one day third party > candidates will win and end the corruption that's inherent in the two > party system. until then it's more of the same politically corrupt > parties On Apr 23, 10:04 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "Sound > familiar? > "Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream Media", > and at least three quarters of the pundits in the "New Media", for reasons > of their own, want desperately for you to believe that if America's next > President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt Romney. > > ""Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party A!""A Little > History Lessonby L. Neil [email protected] > Attribute toL. Neil > Smith'sThe Libertarian Enterprise > In 1964, one of the most formative > years in American history, the "movers and shakers" in the Republican Party > were faced with the terrible prospect of the voters actually getting the > candidate they wanted, instead of whatever member of Skull & Bones and the > Council On Foreign Relations the party elite, in their wisdom, had chosen > for them. > I was an enthusiastic part of a movement then that was almost > indistinguishable from the Tea Party movement of today, pretty much with > all the same virtues and failings: for better or worse, almost exactly the > same general cast of characters. Nevertheless, over the outraged squawking > of the GOP leadership, it was the candidatewewanted, Arizona Senator Barry > Goldwater, who won the nomination that year. > Goldwater wasn't the first > mid-20th century conservative to occupy the political spotlight. That would > be Senator Robert Taft -- a little before my time -- who was cheated out of > the nomination by a corrupt and empty GOP leadership that had thrown its > support to a lifelong Democrat, General Dwight David Eisenhower, no > warrior, and not a man of great moral character, but a military politician > deluxe, whom billions of wartime propaganda dollars had elevated to virtual > godhood. > Barry wasn't by any means a libertarian, either. The word had > hardly been invented, but there were those of us -- mostly Ayn Rand readers > -- who willingly accepted his shortcomings, largely because the man seemed > to be illuminated from within, by the flame of liberty. There hadn't been > anybody quite like him since the original Founding Fathers. > That, of > course was exactly what had the GOP country-club elite, the old-money > Republicans, quivering with terror. In effect, their fortunes depended on > ignoring the Constitution and violating the rights of millions of > Americans. Aided by mass media that were just as evil, stupid, and insane > -- and just as left-leaning -- as today, they had desperately attempted to > offer up one of their own lofty kind, instead. > "PLU" the Brits call > them -- "people like us." > It's possible that you're too young to > remember that in 1964, the Democratic "foe" was Lyndon Baines Johnson, a > Texas politico famously "crooked as a barrel of fish hooks", the former > Senate leg-breaker who, as Vice President, took over the White House after > Jack Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. It's worth noting here that it's > recently been revealed that Jackie Kennedy always thought Johnson had > arranged the assassination. She wasn't alone: in college there was an > underground play, a parody of what actors call "the Scottish play" entitled > MacBird. > In 1964, the lines were clearly drawn. Johnson was a socialist > who infiltrated groups of dissenters, X-rayed people's mail, used the IRS > to hound his enemies to death, and was waging what would be a long, > drawn-out, hideous, and illegal war in Vietnam for reasons that still elude > explanation. At the same time, he was expanding tax-supported entitlement > programs that, in the end, still contribute to America's ruin. > > Goldwater wanted to end welfare, balance the budget, and sell off white > elephants like the Tennessee Valley Authority. He was in favor of gun > ownership and self-defense, blaming the incredibly high violent crime rate > at the time (look up "Kitty Genovese") on a failure to respect the > Constitution. One serious mistake on his part -- and despite the fact that > Johnson was the real war-monger, Barry paid for it dearly in the media -- > was that he failed to see that the war in Asia was unjustifiable. He wanted > to end it quickly, with overwhelming force. > Conservatives today -- even > those nominally on our side, the correct side, of most other issues -- > continue making the same idiotic mistake. > But I digress. > Johnson was > a collectivist. Goldwater was an individualist. The elite leaders of the > Republican Party were, uh, what was the question again? > You may be old > enough to remember Nelson Rockefeller -- this guy was typical of the lot, > who, in fact, the mass media referred to as "Rockefeller Republicans". An > inheritor of his grand-daddy John D. Rockefeller's billions, former > Republican Governor of New York state, captain of industry, master > mercantilist, and pioneering environmental fascist, some fifteen years > after 1964, he died slaving over a hot secretary. > Rockefeller and his > gang were often called "moderate" because they were only moderately in > favor of the defense of liberty, and only moderately opposed to injustice. > It was to them that Goldwater was speaking when he uttered the famous words > written for him by Karl Hess. The media and his mostly-Republican opponents > said Barry was crazy. (They should have met Karl!) One magazine that > claimed 1800 psychiatrists had diagnosed him as insane was sued out of its > lying existence. > Rockefeller was the very epitome of the useless > parasite who thinks he owns America -- not just land and buildings, not > just farms and factories, not just railroads and airlines -- thepeopleof > the country, you and me, our friends and families, who exist, in the view > of slugs like Rockefeller, only to make him wealthier. If it happens to be > by working their lives away for his corporations, while half of what they > earn is stolen by the government he also owns, that's just fine. If it's by > being sent overseas by the thousands or millions to kill or die, so he can > fill his coffers with war profit, that's fine, too. > In the end, > although he won the nomination, the Republicans went limp on Barry. Some > even bragged about going on vacation during the election. To those who knew > what to look for, the treachery was plain to see -- and impossible to > forget. Obviously they preferred to see a proto-Marxist win the Presidency, > and destroy the country with an insane war and even more insane spending, > while trashing individual liberty and civil rights. The 1968 Gun Control > Act was passed by the Johnson regime, but that was just okey-dokey with the > Rockefeller Republicans -- they were vehemently anti-gun themselves. It's > clear that if one of them had been elected instead, it would have made no > historical difference at all. Politically, they were all Johnson clones. > > Sound familiar? > Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream > Media", and at least three quarters of the pundits in the "New Media", for > reasons of their own, want desperately for you to believe that if America's > next President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt > Romney. > "Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party A!" > > And they're saying all the same things about Congressman and doctor Ron > Paul that their moral precursors said about Goldwater, except -- now get > this -- Ron is crazy because he wants tostopa war. > Conservatives I > understand. They're vampires, of a sort, or at least Aztecs at heart. Most > of them never saw a war they didn't like (or would willingly fight in, but > that's a topic for another time). In the 20th century the poor darlings had > to wait for the Democrats to start all the wars, so that they could cheer > on the bloody mass sacrifices. > Democrats, who pretend to be the peace > party, but did, in fact, start all the wars in the 20th century (with one > or two minor exceptions), should be ashamed -- if they were capable of > feeling shame, which a lifetime of political activity has taught me they > are not. > In addition to Nelson Rockefeller and his brother Winthrop, > the gang consisted of individuals like William Scranton, who wept publicly > when Goldwater was nominated, that old Boston codfish Henry Cabot Lodge, > Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield, and Raymond P. Shafer. These are the > four-flushers, dodgers, and shape-shifters who gave us Richard Nixon. > > And oh, yes, one more: George Romney, Mitt's father, to the best of my > recollection, Barry Goldwater's principal enemy, who taught his son to > stand for nothing so that he could be held responsible for nothing. > > Mitt hates, loathes, and despisesyourindividual right to own and carry > weapons. (He has a D-minus rating from Gun Owners of America.) He has > Secret Service protection already, but he did his damnedest to keep > Massachusetts Bill-of-Rights-free for years. Everybody is aware by now that > he is an original architect of medical Marxism. And if that's not enough, > he's said he'd have signed the NDAA. In the end, exactly like Obama, he > will deliver the United States and all its assets into the genocidal hands > of the United Nations. > It's clear -- to me, at least -- that if Mitt > Romney gets elected instead of Obama, it will make no more historical > difference than electing his father or any of his old man's friends would > have back in 1964. > Politically, all Romney is, is an Obama clone. > It > is all he ever will be. > I'm voting Paul -- or not at all. > http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle667-20120422-02.html -- Thanks for > being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community > at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register > and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
