BOTH OF YOU SIMMER DOWN.... Keith, I am on the proverbial fence here. I find no real differences in what Obama or Romney has actually DONE in their public lives.
I do see a great difference in their private endeavors. 1 = 1 however does not add up to 3. I do NOT believe Romney is a Conservative Republican any more than I believe Obama is a Liberal Democrat. Romney will NOT cancel ANY of Obamas Executive orders... the man in power likes such things. I see more permits to drill but see less actual drilling ... just the opposite of Obama with the same result. What I can not abide though is the utter lack of responsible control the government has on spending. I see no change forthcoming with either. The only hope that truly exists is a state by state vote for an immovable spending cap for the Feds and an absolute mandate for a balanced budget. Law enforcement must start to be dictated by the local Sheriffs and the States must give the Feds a true and forceful coat hanger bitch slap. On Apr 24, 10:36 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read 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.
