Romney was Better than Obama

[Timminz]

[thegreekdog]

Based on what you've said so far, you should have either voted for Obama (based on your seemingly blind worship of him as a good Reagan Republican) or Gary Johnson (if you are a small government person). I believe you are a statist with respect to economics and a libertarian with respect to social issues. This puts you squarely in the Democratic Party and your parroting of rhetoric makes sense.

1) I'm not blind
2) I'm not parroting rhetoric, I did my own data searches.
3) Since I almost never listen to anything but Republican talk show hosts, I never heard any Democratic rhetoric to parrot unless it was during the debates.
4) I've found a few, "How Dem are you," and "How Repub are you" quizzes on various sites. When I take them, I'm squarely in the middle, but if I change my pro-choice stance to anti-choice, I'm squarely Republican.

I think you're confused. I've rarely found such an ardent Obama and Democrat supporter on this thread.

And you shouldn't listen to Republican talk show hosts. They regularly lie and spin.

[stahrgazer]

I think you're confused. I've rarely found such an ardent Obama and Democrat supporter on this thread.

Obama, yes. Demo's in general, no.

And you shouldn't listen to Republican talk show hosts. They regularly lie and spin.

Yes, they do.

[saxitoxin]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

[Phatscotty]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

If you are reporting that John Boehner is more anti-Tea Party than Liberals are, and just as sleazy, that isn't news to me

[saxitoxin]

The vote-for-Romney-now-but-takeover-Congress strategy takes another hit as Senator Jim DeMint abruptly resigns from the Senate this morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-s ... p-17893372

[Phatscotty]

The vote-for-Romney-now-but-takeover-Congress strategy takes another hit as Senator Jim DeMint abruptly resigns from the Senate this morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-s ... p-17893372

If Romney had won, Demint would probably stick around to hold Romney's feet to the fire

[saxitoxin]

much more realistic to transform the Republican party. Whatever they may say, it's virtually impossible to deny the battles in the Republican primaries, where the swingin dicks of yesterday can no longer even qualify to run for re-election. We made Arlen Specter switch to the Democrat Party. We have called up Ted Cruz. We have sent Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffitz, Allen West, and Rand Paul.

Republican Leadership to Scott: "Your Vote for Romney Was Appreciated ... Now Here's a Gift"


The 2010 class of GOP congressmen were yanked from their committee assignments this week during a Night of Long Knives and relegated to back-bencher status by GOP leadership. Justin Amash of Utah - who endorsed Ron Paul - was pulled from his powerful post on the Budget Committee and reassigned to a junior position on the committee responsible for oversight of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Huelskamp remained defiant on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters that Boehner signaled he would be booting more Republicans from prestigious panels.

“Where I come from in Kansas, if you want to stab a guy, you look him in the eye and say, ‘Hey.’ Don’t go behind closed doors and send out your aides to say, ‘This is what happened.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/b ... 84642.html

If you are reporting that John Boehner is more anti-Tea Party than Liberals are, and just as sleazy, that isn't news to me

Boehner is a pragmatist; he does what he knows he can get away with - after the incident at the GOP convention he saw that the Tea Party still turned-out to vote for Romney anyway. Therefore, he knew he could castrate their remaining members of Congress without any repercussions. And, as predicted in this thread a few months ago, he did.

Had Romney lost after a groundswell of opposition from the Tea Party instead of losing with the meek and dutiful support of the Tea Party, the Knight of the Long Knives wouldn't have happened. Now it's just a mop-up operation for Bohener - round-up the remnants, close this chapter and move on with business as usual. The Tea Party takes its place on the shelf next to Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and John B. Anderson as just another, once-a-decade, insurgent flare-up that the Major Parties crush.

[Phatscotty]

No way! I disagree! There is a quasi-dimension here that is not being accounted for!

Sure, the fiscal wing mostly turned out, the Social wing somewhat sat it out, and the Liberty wing was AWOL. But most important were the Independents. roughly 10 million less people voted this time than in 2008, and (correct me if I am wrong) but Mitt Romney got more votes than John Mccain did, or else it was very close. That said, f*ck John Boehner AND Woodrow Wilson.

The news you reported does trouble me, but I don't know why you would expect me or us to give up or admit defeat. We will find another way, and the Campaign for Liberty will continue to grow.

on Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.

Ron Paul would have crushed Obama

Rand Paul
The House leaders chose to punish some of their more conservative members for voting for a budget that balanced in the short term and against one that took 28 years to balance. For standing up for fiscal sanity, they were removed from the budget committee. I object to this action, and it sends the wrong message both to conservative members and to the American taxpayer.

[Timminz]

Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.

[Phatscotty]

[saxitoxin]

If he thinks that's funny, wait until Boehner drops a few million into Utah to knock him off in the 2014 primary. The mop-up operations are almost complete.

Now we just wait around until 2024 to see what the next insurgent movement is to have a brief moment in the spotlight.

"Justin, I saved a spot for you, Allen and the rest of the gang on the sofa next to me!"

[Phatscotty]

How Romney was different/better than Obama reason #37 - RUSSIA/Putin

[owenshooter]

i'm having trouble finding Romney's record as President of the U.S of A vs. Obama's record... hmmm... maybe someone can post a link for me...-el Jesus negro

[Dukasaur]

No way! I disagree! There is a quasi-dimension here that is not being accounted for!

Sure, the fiscal wing mostly turned out, the Social wing somewhat sat it out, and the Liberty wing was AWOL. But most important were the Independents. roughly 10 million less people voted this time than in 2008, and (correct me if I am wrong) but Mitt Romney got more votes than John Mccain did, or else it was very close. That said, f*ck John Boehner AND Woodrow Wilson.

The news you reported does trouble me, but I don't know why you would expect me or us to give up or admit defeat. We will find another way, and the Campaign for Liberty will continue to grow.

on Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.

Ron Paul would have crushed Obama

Rand Paul
The House leaders chose to punish some of their more conservative members for voting for a budget that balanced in the short term and against one that took 28 years to balance. For standing up for fiscal sanity, they were removed from the budget committee. I object to this action, and it sends the wrong message both to conservative members and to the American taxpayer.

You just don't get it, do you?

The Republican Party is the party of funneling money from the taxpayers to the military-industrial complex. They will never, ever tolerate any genuine pro-liberty reforms. For 75 years they have put the same libertarian promises in their campaign rhetoric, and in all that time they have never upheld any of them. Stupid, gullible suckers keep buying it, and ALWAYS, without fail, get burned. Do you really think it's a coincidence that there's always some libertarian or quasi-libertarian that seems like the "rising star" in the Republican party, and always gets cut down just before the moment when it seems he will make a difference? These little starlets are permitted so that they suck money and volunteers away from the Libertarian party, but they will never be allowed to hold the keys of power.

I just can't believe that after 75 years there are still people that fall for the same trick. Then again, chain letters have been around longer than that, and there's still people falling for those.

It just makes me so sad.

[shickingbrits]

Duke said it all.

Obama's bleeding the military-industrial complex dry.

[Dukasaur]

Duke said it all.

Obama's bleeding the military-industrial complex dry.

Thanks for the compliment, but that's not actually what I said...

Obama's policies are not noticeably different from Bush's.

[Phatscotty]

No way! I disagree! There is a quasi-dimension here that is not being accounted for!

Sure, the fiscal wing mostly turned out, the Social wing somewhat sat it out, and the Liberty wing was AWOL. But most important were the Independents. roughly 10 million less people voted this time than in 2008, and (correct me if I am wrong) but Mitt Romney got more votes than John Mccain did, or else it was very close. That said, f*ck John Boehner AND Woodrow Wilson.

The news you reported does trouble me, but I don't know why you would expect me or us to give up or admit defeat. We will find another way, and the Campaign for Liberty will continue to grow.

on Romney, was the wrong candidate (again), but at least he is not a Marxist.

Ron Paul would have crushed Obama

Rand Paul
The House leaders chose to punish some of their more conservative members for voting for a budget that balanced in the short term and against one that took 28 years to balance. For standing up for fiscal sanity, they were removed from the budget committee. I object to this action, and it sends the wrong message both to conservative members and to the American taxpayer.

You just don't get it, do you?

The Republican Party is the party of funneling money from the taxpayers to the military-industrial complex. They will never, ever tolerate any genuine pro-liberty reforms.....

uh, actually I do get it. It is one of the main reasons I am a loyal Ron Paul supporter, not at all a Mitt Romney supporter. I know all too well about the morbid obesity of the military and where the money comes from, just as much as you do if not more so. Not sure what else you would expect from a morbidly obese government hell bent on growing ever larger and more powerful though... I hear you about 'never, ever going to win', and I don't entirely blame ya either. However, as for me, that is not a good enough reason to give up, or not even try. I'm sure people said the same thing to General Washington as to the odds that he would ever, EVER defeat the largest and richest most powerful military in the world with an ill-funded rag-tag group of rebels........

Why do you think I constantly harp about the need to reduce government spending, reduce government funding, reduce the size of government?????????

However, Ron Paul did not win the nomination to run for president in 2012, Mitt Romney did. Ron Paul did everything he could, and actually won the majority of delegates from 13 states; I call that 'Progress' and a good start of something that is still growing. And of the choice between 1 of 2 people who were going to be our next president, specifically concerning the original opinion about 'Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same!', I simply stated Romney was a better choice than Obama. Can you dig that???

[Dukasaur]

I'm sure people said the same thing to General Washington as to the odds that he would ever, EVER defeat the largest and richest most powerful military in the world with an ill-funded rag-tag group of rebels........

Washington would have lost if the second largest and richest and most powerful military in the world hadn't come to his aid for reasons of their own.

Not to take anything away from Washington. He was a good, bold leader and fought well, but without the French he would ultimately have been ground down.

However, Ron Paul did not win the nomination to run for president in 2012, Mitt Romney did. Ron Paul did everything he could, and actually won the majority of delegates from 13 states; I call that 'Progress' and a good start of something that is still growing. And of the choice between 1 of 2 people who were going to be our next president, specifically concerning the original opinion about 'Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same!', I simply stated Romney was a better choice than Obama. Can you dig that???

Well, I happen to disagree. As bad as things are under Obama, I suspect they would have been even worse under Romney. Still, that's not what I was criticizing you for. What I'm calling you on is this fantasy that Ron Paul's candidacy was "a good start of something." Rather, it was an end of something. The establishment Republicans learned some new tricks for how to control and manipulate the convention. The next Ron Paul will have the cards stacked against him much more cleverly. No matter how many delegates the outsiders bring, the insiders will find a way to disqualify and/or exclude and/or subvert and/or manipulate and/or buy them.

People who bet against the house always lose in the end. They might go on a little winning streak, but it's an illusion. In the end, the house sets the odds and makes the rules and they will not tolerate losing. The only solution is to wake up, walk out the door, and open a new house across the street.

[Phatscotty]

I'm sure people said the same thing to General Washington as to the odds that he would ever, EVER defeat the largest and richest most powerful military in the world with an ill-funded rag-tag group of rebels........

Washington would have lost if the second largest and richest and most powerful military in the world hadn't come to his aid for reasons of their own.

Not to take anything away from Washington. He was a good, bold leader and fought well, but without the French he would ultimately have been ground down.

However, Ron Paul did not win the nomination to run for president in 2012, Mitt Romney did. Ron Paul did everything he could, and actually won the majority of delegates from 13 states; I call that 'Progress' and a good start of something that is still growing. And of the choice between 1 of 2 people who were going to be our next president, specifically concerning the original opinion about 'Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same!', I simply stated Romney was a better choice than Obama. Can you dig that???

Well, I happen to disagree. As bad as things are under Obama, I suspect they would have been even worse under Romney. Still, that's not what I was criticizing you for. What I'm calling you on is this fantasy that Ron Paul's candidacy was "a good start of something." Rather, it was an end of something. The establishment Republicans learned some new tricks for how to control and manipulate the convention. The next Ron Paul will have the cards stacked against him much more cleverly. No matter how many delegates the outsiders bring, the insiders will find a way to disqualify and/or exclude and/or subvert and/or manipulate and/or buy them.

People who bet against the house always lose in the end. They might go on a little winning streak, but it's an illusion. In the end, the house sets the odds and makes the rules and they will not tolerate losing. The only solution is to wake up, walk out the door, and open a new house across the street.

I disagree too, and that's fine. I hope you are wrong about this being 'the end'. I do know one thing, if we as a country are ever going to get on a path that both you and I and the majority of Americans agree on, it's gonna take more than everything we can do; it's gonna take Faith. I don't blame you for not having any here, and I do appreciate you actually state what you think would be a solution rather than just take easy path and point the finger of blame. And on that I would say my fantasy is not that 'Ron Paul started a good thing'; I think we are past that now and on to something much along the lines of my perspective on the matter. And that is Ron Paul's son Rand Paul having a much more realistic chance of winning a Presidential election. My fantasy would be that Rand Paul leaves the Republican Party and runs for President in 2016 as a Libertarian or Independent candidate. I admit that would likely have to be centered around another fantasy, that being a significant third party candidate cracking the Demican-Repuclicrat one party control of the Presidential Debate Commission. If anyone could do that, I believe it's Rand Paul.

Besides, if we don't try, then I can guarantee you 100% what will happen in the future concerning the issues you and I and many others agree on but Republicans and Democrats will 'never' allow to happen; nothing.

[tzor]

You just don't get it, do you?

The Republican Party is the party of funneling money from the taxpayers to the military-industrial complex. They will never, ever tolerate any genuine pro-liberty reforms. For 75 years they have put the same libertarian promises in their campaign rhetoric, and in all that time they have never upheld any of them. Stupid, gullible suckers keep buying it, and ALWAYS, without fail, get burned. Do you really think it's a coincidence that there's always some libertarian or quasi-libertarian that seems like the "rising star" in the Republican party, and always gets cut down just before the moment when it seems he will make a difference? These little starlets are permitted so that they suck money and volunteers away from the Libertarian party, but they will never be allowed to hold the keys of power.

I have to disagree. First of all, let's understand that the driving force is the money to the party; this generates the flow from the taxpayers to those who funnel money to the party ... at a very good return on investment I might add.

Second of all, the party is the party of crony capitalism of which the military-industrial complex is but one element.

They are pretty much resistant to pro-liberty reforms, but occasionally the bricks fall loose from the castle (Eric Cantor being that rare exception).

[tzor]

Well, I happen to disagree. As bad as things are under Obama, I suspect they would have been even worse under Romney.

I disagree with your disagreement. I think you would have had a more engaged president, who would have been better on the optics and able to work with the other side. The results would have been better than the current condition. How much would be a matter of debate.

Still, that's not what I was criticizing you for. What I'm calling you on is this fantasy that Ron Paul's candidacy was "a good start of something." Rather, it was an end of something. The establishment Republicans learned some new tricks for how to control and manipulate the convention. The next Ron Paul will have the cards stacked against him much more cleverly. No matter how many delegates the outsiders bring, the insiders will find a way to disqualify and/or exclude and/or subvert and/or manipulate and/or buy them.

I'm going to disagree with you here as well. It's important to note that Ron Paul didn't really "start anything" except expose the truth to libertarians. The result is the growing new breed of libertarian, like Rand Paul, who can walk into a "liberal" university and get a standing ovation because there is really nothing liberal about the progressive left and there is still "liberal" in "libertarian." And since it is still easier to splinter the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, things continue to get interesting.

[oVo]

The two party plutocracy won't be broken any time soon and the splintering of these dominant groups is probably the best we can hope for. Only the voting population can break the political grip strangling this country... at the polls. Unfortunately the last decade pretty much shows voters to be ignorant and uninformed.

Many ballots are cast simulating voting for the home team, as if party affiliation is some form of legitimate qualification for holding office.