| Author | Message | ||
     Fb1 |
Source, and read more: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121028/discus s/710289939/ (Message edited by fb1 on October 29, 2012) | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
From the comment section... and as the HMS OBAMA sinks slowly on the dark horizon the moon-lit silhouettes of frantic jumping rats shimmers across the waters surface with the sound of disingenuous voices crying out in vain..... "FORWARD"....only to be silenced by the thunderous sounds of stampeding elephants on the opposite shore. | ||
| Fb1 |
Los Angeles, too?!?!?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/28 /TIDAL-WAVE-Los-Angeles-Daily-News-Endorses-Mitt-R omney | ||
| Fb1 |
Source, and read more: http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21871386/edit orial-elect-mitt-romney-president | ||
| Fb1 |
Just one more:
Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/05/500- Admirals-and-Generals-Endorse-Gov-Romney-Today It's time, America.  | ||
| Moxnix |
Oh, you know my cheap tricks. BadWeb is back up and my inner imp gets to toss out a reflection of me note voting for either big party tomorrow. Don't worry, MO is a red state, so ya'll can't blame me if Obama wins. I'll post something over on the religious thread, too, but don't expect anyone to open it and read what convinced my troubled mind to abstain from supporting either major party's candidate for our highest office. Enjoy: A Word About The Elections by Chuck Baldwin, November 1, 2012 A Word About The Elections By Chuck Baldwin November 1, 2012 Archived column: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5229 With the 2012 Presidential election just a few days away, it is almost superfluous for me to engage in any kind of in depth discussion, as most people cannot, for the life of them, get past the political theater that is currently crescendoing to a climax. Therefore, I will simply provide readers with a few passing thoughts regarding the elections next week. I think Mitt Romney will somewhat comfortably win the Presidential election. This will cause “conservatives,” Christians, and most Republicans to go into a state of deep hibernation, which will allow Romney to wreak havoc upon the Constitution and liberties of the people. In 2012, Barack Obama is the “Boogeyman” that must defeated at all costs. But the fact is, with the exception of Romney’s more business-friendly approach to economics, the differences between Obama and Romney are negligible. As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars. Judge Andrew Napolitano nailed it when he said, “Barack Obama loves Big Labor; Mitt Romney loves Big Business; but they both love Big Government.” Steve Baldwin (no relation) agrees. Steve is a former California State legislator and former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy. He said: “As someone who was asked by one of the presidential candidates to investigate Romney’s gubernatorial record, I can assure you there is little in Romney’s background to suggest he will be a Reagan-type president willing to undertake bold action to save our economy and restore our culture. I know every bill he signed and every statement he made as Governor. I know who his appointees were and the liberal vision that governed his actions. As Massachusetts Governor, he sided with the big government types in every crisis he faced. Indeed, he repeatedly sold out constitutional rights--freedom of religion, the 2nd amendment, etc., every time he had the opportunity to do so. “He raised taxes on the private sector, destroyed job creation when he implemented RomneyCare, and came out in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Most of his judicial appointees were to the left of Obama’s two appointments to the Supreme Court. As governor, he led the country in advancing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Cap and Trade, socialized medicine and gay marriage. Romney even supported Obama’s bailouts and the useless $8 billion stimulus. And he’s hostile to the notion of engaging in serious budget cuts, telling one reporter, ‘I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year.’ “Let’s not also forget that Romney’s advisors actually met with Obama’s advisors on a dozen occasions to assist them with designing ObamaCare! It’s no surprise that Romney is refusing to call ObamaCare a tax, even though it’s the largest middle class tax hike in American history. The reason for this is because, while governor, his RomneyCare plan--the model for ObamaCare--was attacked as a tax and he argued it wasn’t. “In other words, ObamaCare has been taken off the table as a campaign issue because Romney is afraid of being portrayed as a hypocrite for his past statements on this issue. This is reason number 167 why Romney should never have become our nominee. “I don’t care how his campaign portrays him today, his record as Governor is far more indicative of how he will govern than his campaign sound bites. If you’re not familiar with what I am disclosing about Romney, it’s because the truth about Romney was kept from Republican voters. Yes, the conservative movement sold out to Romney. Starting in 2004, Romney created a slew of PACS and foundations that funneled thousands of dollars to hundreds of conservative groups, think tanks, grass roots leaders and GOP entities. “In return, many of these entities that normally would have attacked Romney during the presidential primary went silent or even promoted him. I’ve tracked all of Romney contributions to conservative and GOP groups and it’s disgusting. It means that the leadership of our own conservative movement is up for the highest bidder and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Even National Review, the nation’s leading conservative publication, took money from Romney and for the last six years blocked all articles critical of Romney. Instead, they published a slew of articles portraying him to be a conservative superstar. It was all phony and I can prove it.” Even though Romney will promote at least 85% of the Obama agenda, conservatives have no fear or trepidation of Romney because he is a Republican, whereas Obama scares the pants off of them because he is a Democrat. Ah, don’t you just love partisan politics? Therefore, as I said, absent massive vote-fraud, Romney will be our next President. But he will do NOTHING to stem the tide of coming disaster. Romney will be a military hawk of the highest order. And while corporations doing business with the military-industrial complex will reap huge profits, America’s continued foreign interventionism is going to bring us to the brink of World War III. Furthermore, it is the “we are at war” mantra that is used to justify a burgeoning police state in America, which Romney will enthusiastically continue to implement. And unlike the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Mitt Romney will have little resistance--except from a Democrat-controlled Senate. Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives, which is probably a good thing; Democrats will probably control the Senate. Between the two, I had much rather have Republicans control the House, because trying to find honest-to-God freedomists among Republican US senators (you could count them on two hands) is like trying to find hen’s teeth. Again, Romney isn’t going to appoint freedomist judges anyway, so that argument is moot. But if the first six years of this century proved anything, it proved that neither major party in Washington, D.C., can be trusted with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. That is a recipe for disaster! At this point, I must remind readers that the reason Barack Obama was elected to begin with was due to the eight years of the phony-conservative G.W. Bush administrations. Americans were disillusioned and angry over Bush’s huge spending habits at home and his military adventurism overseas. I predict a Mitt Romney presidency will have the same effect. As with G. W. Bush, Mitt Romney will disappoint and anger the American electorate, which will pave the way for another leftist (Hillary Clinton?) to prevail in 2016. “And the beat goes on.” At some point--maybe toward the end of Romney’s first term--the chickens are going to come home to roost. Neither major party has the guts to do what it takes to put America on a solid financial footing. They are both beholden to too many parasites that are sucking the life’s blood out of our country. And neither party will do a darn thing to stop this fascination with empire that is putting our troops in killing fields all over the world. The result: it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens. And just about anybody with half a brain knows it! It would be nice if a few states would elect freedomist governors, attorney generals, sheriffs, legislators, senators, secretaries of State, etc., next Tuesday. At the end of the day, freedom is going to be won or lost at the State level anyway. I know of a handful of other freedomists in Montana and around the country who, if elected, could make a real difference in their respective states. We’ll see. So, if it makes you feel better, vote for Mitt Romney. He’s probably going to win anyway--but it won’t matter! But, by all means, when you find a for-real freedomist to vote for in the other races, be sure you do that, because that WILL matter! | ||
| Fb1 |
But the fact is, with the exception of Romney’s more business-friendly approach to economics, the differences between Obama and Romney are negligible. Sorry, but I don't know how else to put it: Bullshit. Is it because Romney is Mormon that you post up stuff like this? | ||
| Moxnix |
No, I post up stuff like that because I'm a Libertarian. And if I post it up two days from now, it's just post voting apocalypse commentary of less value than it's low value today. My inner imp is out of control. Besides, Harry Reid is a Mormon and my opinion of him is based on his actions in the political arena. Sure, Mormonism is not a plus for me, but I've explained that earlier.  (Message edited by moxnix on November 05, 2012) | ||
| Fb1 |
No, I post up stuff like that because I'm a Libertarian. Fair enough. It's still bullshit. Peace. | ||
| Reindog |
So you are saying there is no fundamental difference between a businessman and a community organizer? I have to agree with FB1. | ||
| Moxnix |
FB1, my actual fallback position for tomorrow is explained in the link I posted on the well-to-be-ignored religious thread. Don't open it, it will burn your retinas and induce hari krishna sounds emanating from a three decade old package of rolling papers on the book shelf next to In and Out of the Garbage Can. Please understand, as a anarcho-capitalist, I gotta make fun of stuff, cause if I take it seriously it will scare the bejesus outta me. "Sometimes," author William S. Burroughs once said, "paranoia is just having all the facts." (Message edited by moxnix on November 05, 2012) | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>>So you are saying there is no fundamental difference between a businessman and a community organizer? Nope. I don't think that at all. I just posted an opine piece I found to be food for thought. My problems, or at least one of them, is this constant sliver of paranoia that keeps me looking at money trails flowing out of DC, and weakening my resistance to global conspiracies as long as the Federal Reserve exists. Politically, Romney might be Obama light, but it may help my wallet if he is elected and we get a few years of opportunity for business before the next wave of numbskullery skullduggery floats through the Matrix. Oops, there I go again . . . (Message edited by moxnix on November 05, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Mox, I have one caveat to your position. Congress. Even Obama didn't get carte blanche. Romney won't either. The real wild card will be the Senate. Reid will work to block as much from getting to the floor as he can. I'd be surprised if much gets accomplished until the mid-terms. We'll see who the real party of "no" is. The real interesting development will be the court cases attacking Obamacare as a tax. The SCOTUS handed the road map for its demise. It originated in the Senate, but since it's a tax/revenue bill, Constitutionally, it is required to originate in the HoR. Time will tell. Wonder what happens when the Senate refuses to bring a single budget to the floor. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Good to see you all still at it. I can't wait for tomorrow to be over. | ||
| Moxnix |
Me too. I will demand the repeal of the Patriot Act of Bush's early years, which Obama abused. No one will listen, but the cat and dog can always be subjected to my cheap rants. Yes, congressional gridlock. The past 12 years of executive orders set a bad presidence, in my view from the shallow end of political observer's swamp. Reed, he of no budget, will still be just that. Wednesday the over-bloated, self-protecting government, those bureaucrats, technocrats, party apparati, will still be drawing down salaries and cooking up schemes. We could balance the books by cutting the waste and repetition, starting anywhere and stopping when the hog trough is low enough to encourage the rest to do the work for which they are paid. Oink. It may have been better if BadWeb stayed down a couple of more days and my fingers kept from sordent typings of the autocratic kind. Then again, I don't want a guvmint job, just a big self powered rocking chair paid for by my own hand and not the depression era hand outs keeping Democrats in power. (Message edited by moxnix on November 05, 2012) | ||
| Reepicheep |
You might be suprised Moxnix. I supported the patriot act when it came out, and I am against it today. It's security theatre. Some of the more stupid barriers between branches of law enforcement should have been removed, but we didn't need the patriot act to do that. | ||
| Blake |
Nominations for Supreme Court matter. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"Americans were disillusioned and angry over Bush’s huge spending habits at home and his military adventurism overseas." Killing Terrorists - the new adventure ? Damnit - I never got my T-shirt. | ||
| Glitch |
I supported the patriot act when it came out, and I am against it today. I remember this discussion back then, I said something to the order of, it may be fine for this president to have that power, but do you want Hilary to have that same power. | ||
| Aesquire |
Maxnix, I reject the notion that BHO and MR are identical... But I agree that the current 2 party monopoly is getting out of hand. ( and if you mean both are egotistical jerks who want power.... that's all of them ) That said, It's your duty to vote. It's the only legit chance most people have to make any difference, and I've oft said "if you don't vote, don't bitch". My recommendation to any voter, any time, is to vote the bums out. Vote for the guy who is not in office. There are exceptions, as when you desire a majority in a legislature, or the truly rare occasions when you have a decent guy in the job, but how often is that true? So vote. All you disgusted Paul fans, libertarians, and idealists, let's get rid of the old and get some new. It's simple. Fire them. Then we fire the new guys. Eventually they'll get the idea. | ||
| Blake |
Mox, While neither are as libertarian as we'd like, I think Bill Whittle makes an excellent case. | ||
| Ourdee |
note: I usually don't join in on the "political threads". Hello Buellers in the USA, My son, Noah called it a right, and I told him it is my duty to vote. If you have served in the military, you swore an oath to protect this country. I see many, politicians as we all do, but strive to find the statesmen among them. I will never agree completely with the people I vote for. I don't concern myself with some of the insignificant perspectives they have on a lot of minor issues. I do try to pay attention to the character, honesty, and morals of the man. Who they are and what they do in private is of great concern to me. If I do not use my vote for the good of the country, I am no better than Benedict Arnold. Yes, I do feel that strongly on the subject. I'll be in the booth today! ,R.D. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the pavement in front of Her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS. Suddenly a line of big cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a grinning man. "Hi there little girl, I'm Mitt Romney What do you have in the basket?" he asked. "Kittens," little Suzy said. "How old are they?" asked Romney. Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet." "And what kind of kittens are they?" "Republican supporters," answered Suzy with a smile. Romney was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo-op, the two of them agreed that he should return the next day, and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens. So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the pavement with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN and Sky News. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Romney got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy. "Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away." "Yes Sir," Suzy said. "They're Democrat supporters." Taken by surprise, Mitt stammered, "But..but..yesterday, you told me they were REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERS!" Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open." You can substitute the party/personality of your choice, I just put Romney to mess with ya.  | ||
| Britchri10 |
It's the naughty step for you, Grumpy. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Oh the naughty step knows me well! | ||
| Sifo |
Moxnix, It's voting day, many have voted already. This post will have no influence on that at all. There are principles that we live by though. The question is, how do we apply those principles when we vote. You may feel that for example, voting for the Libertarian candidate is a principled vote. I can see that viewpoint and actually agree with it; To a point. I also have a very strong pragmatic side to me that recognizes things are never as perfect as I would like. It's a struggle I've dealt with professionally all my life and is little different politically. What that third part vote does in the real world is split the vote that can actually win. When the Tea Party was getting rolling, I was very interested in where it was going. I agree with many of their principles. I also recognized that as a third party, they were going to lead to disastrous results for the country. I wanted to find out where they stood on this, so I found the right people to ask questions of. I liked what I heard, in that they recognized the same thing I did, that a third party to split the conservative vote is the wrong way to go. They instead wanted to become a party within the party. In fact they are perfectly happy being a party within any party, including the Democrat party. That is without a doubt a long way away. The thought is that to effect change, it has to be done from inside the party, not from outside. The problem isn't that we have a two party system, because we don't have a two party system. Unfortunately, we have a system that is dominated by two parties. There are two possible ways to change this problem. One is to revise our Constitution to a system that isn't winner take all. That isn't likely to happen. The other viable solution is to effect change from within the major parties. This is the direction that the Tea Party has decided on. It's an ongoing process though, not a sweeping change in a single election. It is a solution that can work as a practical matter though. Voting for a third or fourth tier candidate in a winner take all election simply hurts your cause. I really hope you may rethink your voting strategies in the future. The key is to get candidates with the principles that we support into the system to begin with. I supported the patriot act when it came out, and I am against it today. I'm in that same position. It was enacted as temporary legislation to begin with. Now it's been strengthened and made a permanent fixture. It is being set up as a tool to put the boot on the people that it is supposed to protect. The time to turn this around is NOW. Doing it later tends to be a very bloody ordeal. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
 | ||
| Moxnix |
I live just about 100 yards from a polling place at a local church. I'm going, I'll vote. Geez, haven't enough of you read my cheap and sordid postings over the years to know that the cut and paste article somewhere above is just that? Someone else's opine, not from moi. Still, I'm confident MO is a red enough state to handle me voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever. Yes, The Supremes are important. Like what's his honorship chief justice upholding ObuttheadCare as a tax. What if you get the same from Romney, vote what you believe he will do, get what you didn't want . . . ? I'll vote, and not for Obbie. What I want from Romney is an improvement in the business climate that I might get some traction on a series of mechanical devices in development for 11 years. As for the peripherals, he'll be in the tank to someone. Gee whiz, I thought I'd offended everyone at one or more times over the years and this is just another exercise in being a consummate 180 degree ultra butt head tossing out snippets of iconoclasm. I've failed at my calling. | ||
| Sifo |
Still, I'm confident MO is a red enough state to handle me voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever. And what's the end game of doing so? I presume your intent is what is commonly expressed, to get more and more people aware of third parties and get them to grow. Eventually you do get to where your state gets a drastic change that the people neither wanted or expected. A big aspect of staying safe on a motorcycle to to always look way down the road for threats. Voting should be no different. | ||
| Fb1 |
http://youtu.be/ByRsaeiv2xc It's time, America. |
