Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Lots of Ron Paul followers feel betrayed by the endorsement of Rand Paul for Mitt Romney. Also, lots of Libertarians are angry beyond belief in Rand for endorsing a Goldman Sachs, Neo-con scumbag in Mitt Romney.
Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney on Sean Hannity show
An Appeal to Ron Paul, on Mitt Romney
RT America anchor grills Jack Hunter over Rand Paul endorsement of Mitt Romney
The Rand Paul Deception with Webster Tarpley
Penny Freeman, former staffer in tears over Ron Paul betrayals
What do you think about this? Is this the end of the Liberty movement in the United States. Should we support what the Paul family is doing in trying to join with the mainline Republican Party and try to change it from within? Is this Rand Paul's way of eventually becoming the Vice President in the Romney Presidency or getting ready for a future Presidential run? Or, should we vote for someone like a Gary Johnson or Rocky Anderson or another Third Party candidate to take the place of Ron Paul? Or, do you not care because its all too late for the United States and it's destined to fall in the near future?
You have two choices in November, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. If you want the economic recovery to continue to stall, if you want unemployment to remain high and the national debt to continue to skyrocket, then vote for Obama.
If you want new leadership, fiscal discipline, less government regulation so more people are free to start their own business and therefore, more people will be needed to fill new jobs and the unemployment rate will decrease, then vote for Romney.
I don't know about you but I definitely prefer new leadership in Washington that's why I am voting for Romney. If you like the way things are now, then by all means vote for Obama.
"When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American woman, I don't know if I should laugh .............. or vomit!"
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
You should've voted for the guy who would give everyone a free pony when voted in! Guess no one likes politicians who keep their promises!
The western political systems are just a damn good illusion, it was never any good from the very beginning! Obama, Romney, Paul or even Nader, whoever gets chosen for US president doesn't matter, the show goes on, in the same way as intended.
A representative democracy backed by a monarchy is STILL a monarchy...
James Bond that is about the most disconnected post you have made....
Mitt is a joke or should I say a real politician. He sticks his finger in the air, sees which way the wind is blowing and goes that way. In other words he has no convictions, expect one that should be very concerning to you. He's a fiscal conservative, he has to be otherwise being Mormon would be ruthlessly attacked by Fox and Christians in general.
When I say fiscal Conservative I don't mean Dwight Eisenhower, I mean Ronald Regan and if that's what you want, then go ahead... What did Regan do, start the war on Unions by firing Air Traffic Controllers for one thing. He also cut taxes, which he then had to raise back up because the recession of the early 1980's forced his hand.
Mitt has openly supported Paul Ryan's GOP Budget Outline, which puts major cuts in social programs. You wanna see European style Austerity (and the riots that go with it), then vote for Romney.
He will for sure want to start a war with Iran which will do nothing but spell doom for Israel. Not to say Obama wouldn't either, but its more likely with the Neo-Cons Romney has assembled to be his Foreign Policy Advisory team. Look what happen the last time Neo-Cons were in power (Both Gulf Wars).
Not that I am happy with Obama but like always when faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils, you pick the less evil = Obama
Not that Obama hasn't threaten cuts to social programs through the suggestions of the Simpson-Bowels panel findings.
It likely doesn't matter, because the real issue is Congress, not who's President. If Congress stays divided (House controlled by the GOP, Senate controlled by the Dems), neither will likely get much done. So you can expect the same economic results no matter who's in power at the top.
What's likely to happen is this -
No matter who wins :
Some type of attack or war started with Iran, with Romney its 70-30, with Obama its 40-60. I would also add that the Neo-Cons would force Romney into aiding the "Freedom Fighters" in Syria. Look at Libya that turned out well (NOT!). I would also both will continue some type of war in Afghanistan.
No major changes to economy unless one of the major banks goes down and that's very likely. Who is that bank? Bank of America, why? Because they bought Countrywide one of the biggest sub-prime lenders. BofA has no idea where the "bodies are buried". Plus because of that Countrywide connection, there is a pending law suit from investors about the quality of the CDS (Credit Default Swaps) sold to them while Countrywide was a self-contained company. From industry insiders, the likelihood of BofA crashing is 90% and you won't hear this on Fox Business or CNBC, you'll have to seek out alternative media for that.
So is America ready for another systemic bailout of banks with no strings attached? We shall see... After all the ECB scared the Irish into voting for more fiscal misery by voting for the EU Compact.
Some national incident may spark what some might call a "Race War". With seemingly increased violence against Black Men (shit that's not covered) and angst among the White Male population (for Black President, Feminism, Joblessness/Unemployment) something rather routine in nature might spark a rash of violence from both sides. With Anonymous' recent attack on White Nationalist web site and many in that sect believe Anonymous is controlled by Jews or as the old canard goes - "Jews fund the attack on White Males, while they use Blacks as enforcers..."
Nothing may happen, but as I said, with the threat of social services cuts at the city, county, state and federal level means increased unemployment, lost of hope and general misery. What happens then is people start looking put the blame on somebody or something and all too often White Males put the blame on minorities and "Jew" bankers/politicians.
Not sure how you could subjectively vote for Romney when by all accounts he's just like Obama in many respects. He was the Gov of a Blue State (Mass) which means he was a moderate by US Political standards or as some would call it, a Reagan Democrat.... While Clinton and now Obama are basically "Republican Light".
Either way by Nov, I won't be here and if Romney is elected the less likely I will return. That said, even if Obama gets a second term, I may not come back, as I said the system is broken, not the people in it, and its thinking like yours that continues this ship being steered into the iceberg.
Mitt Romney is the latest in a long line of "chickenhawks": people who evaded service in Vietnam but love to send Americans kids to die in their unjust wars.
George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and now we can add Mitt Romney to the list. We can also add country singer Toby Keith to the list; he's not a politician and he's too young to have served in Vietnam but his "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue" song is the national anthem of chickenhawks.
I myself served in Iraq and I would not shake the hand of a single one of these "men". I have no problem with people having never served in the military; my problem is with people who intentionally evaded service and then later on decided to start unjust wars and send kids over to die, knowing that they themselves never served.
In 2004 I hated John Kerry, since at the time I was a 19-year-old brainwashed Marine who thought that he was a traitor for being against the Iraq War and for having protested against Vietnam. Now I have nothing but the utmost respect for Kerry: he was a man who actually did serve in Vietnam and could rightfully tell Dick Nixon that the war was unjust.
Mitt Romney is a disgusting waste of a human being.
I think Rand is looking towards the future and a presidential run. He is ready to play ball to become a leader in the party. His father is now too old to ever run for president again. For me, Romney is better than Obama, because I live outside the US and have no interest in being harassed to pay a huge extortion tax for the Obamacare boondoggle. They both will follow the same foreign policy. It should now be obvious to anyone that the foreign policy is not determined by the president.
Last edited by MrPeabody on Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1000%, The problem is there is no penalty for being a hypocrite... You can be one, get elected to office (Bush) or have your own radio show (Beck, Rush) or you can be a criminal and have your own radio show (Gordon Liddy) or run for office and get elected (Ric Scott).
Romney is worse than Obama. Romney is the ultimate Wall Street insider, lacking any sign of integrity. A Romney presidency would be a Wall Street presidency. Obama is 90% corrupt, Romney is 100% corrupt.
jamesbond, you want change of any kind? Would you vote for Hitler or Mao over Obama? As bad as Obama is, there are far worse options.
djfourmoney, comparing Romney to Reagan is absurd. Even if you disagree with Reagan, you have to admit that the man stood up for what he believed in. Reagan had integrity. Romney is just a crook.
As for Rand Paul, he is making a very bad mistake based on the idea that support from the Republican party will help him in a future presidential election. When the economy collapses, mainstream republicans and democrats will be thrown out.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
+1. Have to add Obama to the chickenhawk list too, though. I remember when Korea vet Pete McCloskey came up with the term chickenhawk in the '80s. It shamed Pat Buchanan so much (I believe) that he went from being an ardent cold warrior to a Taft non-interventionist almost overnight. Most other pols are entirely without shame, however, and this profound insult just rolls right off their backs.
This info is new to me, thanks.
May have to google around re McCloskey and Buchanan too.
Any chance of Paulistas staying organized and becoming a third force?
10000% sure that Rand got his fathers blessing b4 endorsing Mitt...no betrayal there.
btw: has Mitt released his college transcripts, student aid paperwork, passports, work history, attorney court cases yet?
marriage is a 3 ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring and then suffering.
I think it is just politicking. What I care about is how Rand and Ron vote, not who they do their political necking with.
Anyway, I doubt Ron will endorse anyone. I personally am going to vote for Johnson if Ron doesn't win.
BTW, for as for John Kerry being anti-war, that is not true. He merely was using as a political prop to differentiate himself from Bush. He would never commit to laying out what criteria he used to determine if a war was justified or not. Dennis Kucinich was a true anti-war pol from the left.
I'm going to vote for Johnson as well. I also like Dennis Kucinich too as he is one of handful of Democrats I don't totally despise and hate. It would've been nice if he and Ron ran as third party, but that don't won't happen now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: nicho12, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests