IggyPride00;1074001 wrote:You need to watch the ad posted above your post.

Willard is a George Soros approved candidate.

I prefer to find a Conservative, not Obama-lite.

I watched it, and I thought that it was pretty lame.

Here's what I saw:

Romney say that he won't mess with Massachusett's abortion laws. Okay.

Romney say that he won't mess with Massachusett's gun laws. Okay.

Obama claim that Obamacare = Romneycare, incorrectly as I have shown. Can you see the infographic?

A five-second long clip in which Romney calls Geithner a smart guy, and that he has accomplished stuff. Okay...

As for George Soros, if you watch the entire interview he says that Gingrich and Santorum are extreme conservatives and Romney when compared to those two isn't far from Obama. He is right, considering how fucking far to the right socially Gingrich and Santorum are.

I could give a shit if Romney fits the definition of a conservative. Hell, I don't even think there is one other than "hates abortion and gays, loves guns." Yeah, that isn't Romney. But the right has a circlejerk every time Reagan or the Bushes are mentioned and all of those guys blew up the deficit. real conservative. I think conservative America is basically retarded because none of those social issues matter at all to your bank account, and yet you ignore the litany of very impressive accomplishments by Romney which no other candidate can come close to matching. All sane people see Romney at worst as a pragmatist and populist, not a liberal. You can't be a liberal and be a Mormon.

Any comments on what I said in regards to your previous post though?

Manhattan Buckeye;1074004 wrote:"Willard is even more loathed than McCain among the base, and will do nothing in excite or inspire Conservatives to knock on doors, campaign and organize for the upcoming election. "

He doesn't have to, he just has to run against Obama.

This.

And Romney doesn't need to energize the social conservatives, because the moderates love him. Hell, even liberals like him because liberals hate social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives. A lot of what Romney has done--you know, basically single-handedly saving the Olympics and the entire state of Massachusetts from imploding--makes perfect fucking sense. A lot of liberals and moderates love Ron Paul for a very similar reason, and yet I just saw on Fox News an interview with the Tea Party on Nevada and the guy say that he didn't like Ron Paul because he wasn't "socially conservative enough for me." Once again, "conservatives" making asinine judgments because of the bible. That'll save the country...

May I ask for some instances in which Romney hasn't been a fiscal "conservative?" I don't recall him ever exacerbating a budget crisis, or raising taxes to pay for inefficient or unnecessary government programs.

sjmvsfscs08;1074042 wrote:This.

And Romney doesn't need to energize the social conservatives, because the moderates love him. Hell, even liberals like him because liberals hate social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives. A lot of what Romney has done--you know, basically single-handedly saving the Olympics and the entire state of Massachusetts from imploding--makes perfect ****ing sense. A lot of liberals and moderates love Ron Paul for a very similar reason, and yet I just saw on Fox News an interview with the Tea Party on Nevada and the guy say that he didn't like Ron Paul because he wasn't "socially conservative enough for me." Once again, "conservatives" making asinine judgments because of the bible. That'll save the country...

May I ask for some instances in which Romney hasn't been a fiscal "conservative?" I don't recall him ever exacerbating a budget crisis, or raising taxes to pay for inefficient or unnecessary government programs.

That budget plan he has put out would produce trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.

He has no plan to cut spending. The only difference between he and Obama is that Obama wants to raise your taxes and spending to create his deficit, while Willard wants to cut taxes and trim around the edges on spending to create his deficits.

End resullt under both plans is massive government debt, just arrived at in different ways.

The only fiscal conservative in this race is Dr. Paul, who can't win the election.

IggyPride00;1074232 wrote: The only difference between he and Obama is that Obama wants to raise your taxes and spending to create his deficit, while Willard wants to cut taxes and trim around the edges on spending to create his deficits.

I think, or at least hope, you're selling Romney short. Nevertheless, if you are one of the 53% of people who actually pay taxes, then Romney is the better choice because all else (deficits) equal, lower taxes & spending is more pro-growth and better for the middle class.

IggyPride00;1074232 wrote:That budget plan he has put out would produce trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.

He has no plan to cut spending. The only difference between he and Obama is that Obama wants to raise your taxes and spending to create his deficit, while Willard wants to cut taxes and trim around the edges on spending to create his deficits.

End resullt under both plans is massive government debt, just arrived at in different ways.

The only fiscal conservative in this race is Dr. Paul, who can't win the election.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions, and I get it now, you're a Paulist and nothing will appeal to you.

sjmvsfscs08;1074506 wrote:I think you're making a lot of assumptions, and I get it now, you're a Paulist and nothing will appeal to you.

Nothing?

How about a candidate that is consistent in each and every one of his beliefs? Couple that with a candidate with a real plan to address the tough issues and actually make cuts to our budget. That appeals to me, and luckily for me, Ron Paul is the perfect candidate to handle the issues that concern me and should concern you.

sjmvsfscs08;1074506 wrote:I think you're making a lot of assumptions, and I get it now, you're a Paulist and nothing will appeal to you.

Did you read Romney's 1,000 point plan or whatever it was? They aren't assumptions.

IggyPride00;1073962 wrote:[video=youtube_share;wAkKl3Y8xmQ][/video]

The truly sad part of this video is that it was a Gingrich campaign ad. Really? The only thing the Newt camp can do is tell me how much Romney is like Obama? I fucking can't stand when politicians campaign to me about not voting for the other guy instead of telling me why I should vote for them!

Cleveland Buck;1074564 wrote:Did you read Romney's 1,000 point plan or whatever it was? They aren't assumptions.

I've never seen anyone actually have so much support for Romney. It's a bit strange. I don't really see why someone would support a guy who couldn't even beat the guy that lost to Obama in the first place.

sjmvsfscs08;1074042 wrote:Romney doesn't need to energize the social conservatives, because the moderates love him.

The social conservatives will never vote for Obama. They will just stay home or only vote state and local. Willard will need them to turn out for him or he will be toast. The moderates are fickle. It all depends how the political winds are blowing at the time of the election. Difference is they will vote for Obama.

sjmvsfscs08;1074042 wrote: Hell, even liberals like him because liberals hate social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives.

Willard in his heart of hearts holds the beliefs of many social conservatives, I believe he always has. When campaigning for state wide offices in socially liberal Massechusetts he itched their ears with chosen words. Since his youth he has been a devout follower of the morman religion. You are right liberals hate social conservatives. His careful political dance has left both sides in doubt. But rest assured the social liberals will fall in line behind Obama because they are not about to take a chance that Willard's religious beliefs will surface at the next SCOTUS appointment.

sjmvsfscs08;1074042 wrote: A lot of what Romney has done--you know, basically single-handedly saving the Olympics and the entire state of Massachusetts from imploding--makes perfect fucking sense. A lot of liberals and moderates love Ron Paul for a very similar reason, and yet I just saw on Fox News an interview with the Tea Party on Nevada and the guy say that he didn't like Ron Paul because he wasn't "socially conservative enough for me." Once again, "conservatives" making asinine judgments because of the bible. That'll save the country...

You bring up one idiot you saw on Fox News. Don't even bother giving his name (he is likely a nobody) like he speaks for the movement. You sound like the Ronulans or should I say Romulans. This guy is likely one of those big government social conservatives that wants his beliefs enforced at the federal level. Pauls constitutional formula of letting the states deal with these matters just does not cut it. He should take his chances with Willard.

dwccrew;1074636 wrote:The truly sad part of this video is that it was a Gingrich campaign ad. Really? The only thing the Newt camp can do is tell me how much Romney is like Obama? I fucking can't stand when politicians campaign to me about not voting for the other guy instead of telling me why I should vote for them!

I really don't have a problem with them except when they are blatantly deceitful. Sometimes politicians need be exposed. They are quite effective in the former and even more so in the latter. Here is one for you. Is this all the Paul camp can do telling us how much Gingrich is like Obama?

[video=youtube_share;1Jzi3HBCS2M][/video]

IDIOT "Well by golly gee, Romney has a big fat R after his name so he must be a conservative. We can't have none of them thar guys with big fat D's after their names."

GENIUS " Look at his policies not that he has an R behind his name." He is a cronic massive spender who is going to continue to make the deficit raise."

IDIOT " Well golly gee that's okay because he will spend a little less and he has a nice purty R after his name and not one of them thar ugly D's

Is this all the Paul camp can do telling us how much Gingrich is like Obama?

This is just myopia of the fringe.Basically, when you are out at the edge and looking in toward the center it's difficult to ascertain differences. This phenomenon can be explained by imagining you have field level seats in the endzone of a football game....(indeed, Paul supporters like to think themselves as so much more conservative then everyone else).Watching the game from that perspective,( take away the scoreboard and bigscreen TV) it is difficult to determine where the ball is actually at. Is it on the 30, 40 or even across the 50?

I was first aware of this distortion of perspective when I went to college in upstate New York. About half the school was from NYC, Long Island and the east coast. At least initially, us Ohio boys were thought of as being from "out west"...along with the people from Chicago , Iowa, Colorado and Montana...as if there was no differences between us.
In the same way, Paulists look in toward the center and can't tell the difference between the other Republican candidates. They all look "out west" ...or out 'left' politically. They can't tell the difference between BHO on the 25 yd line and Romney on the 45...Gingrich and Santorum are on the other side of the 50 but they still don't look much different to the Ronulans in the endzone.

I'm sure some one will disagree with me where I put these guys on the 'football field'...and I don't care that is not my point. The point is that as long as one only accepts what Paul is saying as truth, then the myopia will continue. There are big differences between the candidates, but I don't think Paul supporters can see it, or even want to see it.... more likely, they don't care that there is a difference. They want the ball in their endzone period.
So they should just be honest with all of us...and say the truth. There are differnces between the candidates...but they don't care...they want it Ron Paul's way.
They need to be honest with themselves too....it ain't gonna happen.

Zombaypirate;1074850 wrote: GENIUS " Look at his policies not that he has an R behind his name." He is a cronic massive spender who is going to continue to make the deficit raise."

Show this.

There are differences. There is also a difference between someone who will torture you for days then kill and someone who will just walk up and shoot you in the head. one is more extreme than the other but the end result is the same. Thats my opinion of the other candidates. Yea they may be a little better than Obama but the problems will still go on.

HitsRus;1074887 wrote:This is just myopia of the fringe.Basically, when you are out at the edge and looking in toward the center it's difficult to ascertain differences. This phenomenon can be explained by imagining you have field level seats in the endzone of a football game....(indeed, Paul supporters like to think themselves as so much more conservative then everyone else).Watching the game from that perspective,( take away the scoreboard and bigscreen TV) it is difficult to determine where the ball is actually at. Is it on the 30, 40 or even across the 50?

I was first aware of this distortion of perspective when I went to college in upstate New York. About half the school was from NYC, Long Island and the east coast. At least initially, us Ohio boys were thought of as being from "out west"...along with the people from Chicago , Iowa, Colorado and Montana...as if there was no differences between us.
In the same way, Paulists look in toward the center and can't tell the difference between the other Republican candidates. They all look "out west" ...or out 'left' politically. They can't tell the difference between BHO on the 25 yd line and Romney on the 45...Gingrich and Santorum are on the other side of the 50 but they still don't look much different to the Ronulans in the endzone.

I'm sure some one will disagree with me where I put these guys on the 'football field'...and I don't care that is not my point. The point is that as long as one only accepts what Paul is saying as truth, then the myopia will continue. There are big differences between the candidates, but I don't think Paul supporters can see it, or even want to see it.... more likely, they don't care that there is a difference. They want the ball in their endzone period.
So they should just be honest with all of us...and say the truth. There are differnces between the candidates...but they don't care...they want it Ron Paul's way.
They need to be honest with themselves too....it ain't gonna happen.

Well said. Yes there are differences. History and basic math tell us that one of two people in the entire planet Earth will be the next president: the Republican candidate or Obama. It doesn't matter if it's Romney, Paul, or Perfect Candidate X, we gots a long way to go to fix this thing. We need more true conservatives in the House, the Senate is an absolute trainwreck (even if the Republicans get a majority, there's still the filibuster thingy), and the midterms of 2014 will be crucial. The presidency is a huge part of that, but it ain't the only part.

I'm not telling people who to vote for, but voting for a square of toilet paper makes as much sense as voting third party. At least there's some hope that Romney (or another unlikely candidate) will put the brakes on and give us some time to fix this.

sjmvsfscs08;1074911 wrote:Show this.

Are you capable of looking at a map? Mass. the home of the liberals and commies what part of that do you purposefully fail to comprehend?

http://massresistance.org/romney/

Wake up WAKE UP!! Liberal is as liberal does...............

More on Romney the liberal.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/15/romneycare-the-wreckage/


Wreckage is correct.

The media wants Mitt Romney to win the nomination so that's who's going to win. Plain and simple.

Zombaypirate;1075041 wrote:Are you capable of looking at a map? Mass. the home of the liberals and commies what part of that do you purposefully fail to comprehend?

http://massresistance.org/romney/

Wake up WAKE UP!! Liberal is as liberal does...............

Honest question...do you hate gay people? That's really all that I see in that website. I don't see proof of irresponsible deficit spending, which is what I asked for.

Zombaypirate;1075052 wrote:More on Romney the liberal.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/15/romneycare-the-wreckage/

Wreckage is correct.

You do realize that Romney has agreed that the health care plan has many flaws? Do you realize that the beauty of a state plan vs a federal plan is that you can learn from the flaws in a neighboring program, and know what not to do. That's precisely why Romney strongly favors letting the states handle their own situations. As for Massachusetts, 67% of the citizens favor it (68% favored it when it passed in 2006). Health care costs spiked initially but have leveled out to what was expected, and now 98% of people have insurance. Massachusetts likes it, other states wouldn't and that's perfectly okay.

It's a non-issue because Romney isn't running to be your governor, he's running to be the head of the federal government. HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND WANTS TO UNDO OBAMACARE.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard to realize that he is a fiscal conservative and social moderate (which is exactly what most Americans want).

Iowa: Rick Santorum
New Hampshire: Mitt Romney
South Carolina: Newt Gingrich
Florida: Mitt Romney
Nevada: Mitt Romney


Maine: Romney
Colorado: ??
Minnesota: ??
Arizona: ??
Michigan: Romney

sjmvsfscs08;1075537 wrote:Honest question...do you hate gay people? That's really all that I see in that website. I don't see proof of irresponsible deficit spending, which is what I asked for.



You do realize that Romney has agreed that the health care plan has many flaws? Do you realize that the beauty of a state plan vs a federal plan is that you can learn from the flaws in a neighboring program, and know what not to do. That's precisely why Romney strongly favors letting the states handle their own situations. As for Massachusetts, 67% of the citizens favor it (68% favored it when it passed in 2006). Health care costs spiked initially but have leveled out to what was expected, and now 98% of people have insurance. Massachusetts likes it, other states wouldn't and that's perfectly okay.

It's a non-issue because Romney isn't running to be your governor, he's running to be the head of the federal government. HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND WANTS TO UNDO OBAMACARE.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard to realize that he is a fiscal conservative and social moderate (which is exactly what most Americans want).

Christians love the sinner and hate the sin.

As to your nonsense. Romney is going to do NOTHING to Obamacare. I shake my head in disbelief that you would believe a liberal piece of crap like him.

He is a spender period. I will be haunting this website showing his failure should he even be able to beat Obama.

When you say moderate that is the new nice way of saying stinkin liberal.

A state sponsered healthcare system is now a fiscal conservative? No wonder our country is falling apart with idiocy like this spewing out of peoples heads?

Really? Socialist medicine is now fiscal conservative? I am speechless.

Zombaypirate;1075598 wrote:Christians love the sinner and hate the sin.

As to your nonsense. Romney is going to do NOTHING to Obamacare. I shake my head in disbelief that you would believe a liberal piece of crap like him.

He is a spender period. I will be haunting this website showing his failure should he even be able to beat Obama.

When you say moderate that is the new nice way of saying stinkin liberal.

A state sponsered healthcare system is now a fiscal conservative? No wonder our country is falling apart with idiocy like this spewing out of peoples heads?

Really? Socialist medicine is now fiscal conservative? I am speechless.

Right, so none of that showed me where and when Romney ran up a budget deficit or acted in an egregious fiscally irresponsible manner.

Romneycare didn't raise anyone's taxes, so I sit here wondering how that can be fiscally irresponsible.

You call yourself a Christian while and yet rip into a program 1) that gave hundreds of thousands of people healthcare and 2) that two-thirds of the people there seem to love. We live in a country where people are allowed to rule themselves and if a state chooses to draft a healthcare plan for their state...you should shut the fuck up about it because it doesn't negatively impact your life.

Love the sinner hate the sin? You're a bigot and a moron, and shockingly ignorant and dozens of quotes from Romney calling for the repeal of Obamacare. How the hell do you expect Romney to win renomination in 2016 without getting rid of Obamacare and acting against the deficit? He wouldn't survive his own party's candidates.

I suggest you wake up or take off your tinfoil hat. Romney isn't a liberal, he just isn't an ignorant social conservative like yourself. When I say moderate I mean that he doesn't want to discriminate against gays and is a general populist on the social issues in this country. Social issues won't break this country, fiscal and economic ones will. And the last time I checked the last three "social conservatives" who were in the Oval Office sorta fucking blew at keeping the deficit under control...



We either have to put in office an expert businessman who knows how to get some economic growth going and bring an unseen level of efficiency to programs, or we have to go the Paul route in 2016/2020.

When you say moderate that is the new nice way of saying stinkin liberal.

totally myopic. Great example. See my post about myopia of the fringe.

A state sponsered healthcare system is now a fiscal conservative

I believe states do have their perogatives in a constitutional sense.

I am speechless

I'm not so sure that is bad. Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom to speak is not a requirement.

sjmvsfscs08;1075610 wrote:Right, so none of that showed me where and when Romney ran up a budget deficit or acted in an egregious fiscally irresponsible manner.

Romneycare didn't raise anyone's taxes, so I sit here wondering how that can be fiscally irresponsible.

You call yourself a Christian while and yet rip into a program 1) that gave hundreds of thousands of people healthcare and 2) that two-thirds of the people there seem to love. We live in a country where people are allowed to rule themselves and if a state chooses to draft a healthcare plan for their state...you should shut the **** up about it because it doesn't negatively impact your life.

Love the sinner hate the sin? You're a bigot and a moron, and shockingly ignorant and dozens of quotes from Romney calling for the repeal of Obamacare. How the hell do you expect Romney to win renomination in 2016 without getting rid of Obamacare and acting against the deficit? He wouldn't survive his own party's candidates.

I suggest you wake up or take off your tinfoil hat. Romney isn't a liberal, he just isn't an ignorant social conservative like yourself. When I say moderate I mean that he doesn't want to discriminate against gays and is a general populist on the social issues in this country. Social issues won't break this country, fiscal and economic ones will. And the last time I checked the last three "social conservatives" who were in the Oval Office sorta ****ing blew at keeping the deficit under control...



We either have to put in office an expert businessman who knows how to get some economic growth going and bring an unseen level of efficiency to programs, or we have to go the Paul route in 2016/2020.

An expert eh? Your stupidity aside of me being a bigot. Romney is a spender and here is the evidence that proves it without any question, so spin away liberal.

So under Mr. Romney, state spending went from $22.3 billion to $28.1 billion, an annual increase of 6.5 percent.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/clarification-on-huckabee-and-romney-spending/

Romney INCREASED SPENDING. Now I expect a retraction from morons who think he is fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives DO NOT INCREASE SPENDING they lower it.

HitsRus;1075616 wrote:totally myopic. Great example. See my post about myopia of the fringe.



I believe states do have their perogatives in a constitutional sense.

I'm not so sure that is bad. Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom to speak is not a requirement.

Your post was utterly vacuous.

You have it completely backwards. You see, you being liberal, you see it the opposite way of the truth.