I actually mis-spoke in that reply. What I meant to say, was when Paul knew that the bill would pass, would be when he would cast his, "Nay" vote.....
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > 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.
