so you're saying a neocon is a liberal turned inside out? On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 ยป > > -- > 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/<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.
