Geoffrey, I said nor did I imply any such thing... I write rather literally; please read it the same way.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * -- 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.
