Time for paul, newt and santorum to quit...

Lets get real here folks. The big delegate states left like N.Y. and kallyfornicator etc are going to go to the Mittster, so lets put an end to this charade by encouraging the 3 losers to pack their bags and save what little $$ they have left (if any) to use in attacking obama the anti American criminal. I'm giving a special shoutout to Paul who hasn't won a single state, and won't win one--for him to save what little face he has left by bowing out with grace.

Romney beats obama heads up--something the other three can't and will never be able to do. So lets get an all-encompassing multicultural (if you will) standing ovation for Mitt the next president of the U.S. of A.

 

Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich should drop out for sure. Mitt should reach out to them to get them on the team to oust Obama.

I think Santorum is playing for the VP nomination.

 

I'm not that concerned about paul dropping out for the simple reason I think he's in Romney's corner to when the time is right he will fold and give his support for him. But having newt stay in with an obvious childlike behavior of a poor loser, and thus making it harder for the eventual nominee to beat the scumbag obama is in my mind criminal. If santorum is vying for the VP slot he will have to tone down his criticisms of Romney....doncha think?

 

How about no...

 

Spoken like a true liberal who is satisfied with the nation going into the dumper under the socialist obama.

 

Sorry, not going to give my support to a Statist. It's easy for you to vote for the "lesser" of two evils when you treat politics like Sports.

 

Spoken like a true ignorant person who knows nothing about me and claims me to be a liberal...

I seriously think you are obsessed with liberals...according to you...everyone that disagrees with your views are liberals...

Really bro...take a deep breath and come back to reality...it will be ok...

 

Is that a joke? Obama will hand Romney's ass to him when he shows everyone how much of a hypocrite he is. And Romney won't be able to make Obama look like a hypocrite without showing how much of a hypocrite he himself is.

The only one who can beat Obama is Paul. If Paul was the GOP nominee going against Obama, most Republicans would vote for him, many independents and alot of dissilusioned Democrats. In contrast, if Romney was the GOP nominee, he wouldn't get as much of the Republican vote as Paul would (if you discount the Paul-Republicans who won't vote for Romney), as well as barely any of the independents and Democrats.

Not enough to beat Obama. Sorry. Oh well, you neo-cons get what you deserve. And you deserve 4 more years of Obama for not electing Paul.

 

lol wishful thinking

Ron is here to stay.

 

Apparently you don't realize that one of the major goals of Ron Paul's Presidential campaign is to get his ideas of freedom AKA Constitutional Individualism out there to the masses as much as possible. Over the past 5 years he has planted the seeds for a massive libertarian movement that will take root and grow over the coming decades. Simultaneously, neo-conservatism will die over the coming decades with the baby boomers.

 

Why is the #1 goal of neo-cons to get Obama out? So they can replace him with Obama-lite? The #1 goal should be to eliminate 90+% of the federal government by reimplementing the Constitution.

Just goes to show how fake the neo-cons really are.

 

You seem to be a bit clueless--perhaps its the age factor. The #1 goal of the Republicans is to get obama out...duh! Once we accomplish that goal we then turn to job creation and the reduction of an overspending government. Romney is just the man to fill those shoes. How many jobs has paul created throughout his political career? Romney trumps paul with his job creating business abilities. And while paul would reduce government's role, so would Romney, but Romney wouldn't gut our military and play chicken sh*t dove games with our defense and our military as paul claims to do. Didn't you watch the debates when paul looked like the lone liberal on stage with his pacifist/dovish views on foreign affairs and on Iran's threat of nukes? Besides, paul couldn't win a dog catcher position in his golden years as a tired out congressman who is just looking for his 15 minutes of fame or perhaps to keep the paul name alive for his son's political career. Whatever the reason, the guy is all finished--he's old news.

 

Romney would pander and do what the corporatist leaders tell him to do...

This quote proves you know absolutely nothing about Paul's foreign policy plan...

 

So there is a correlation between an adult's age and an adult's education? Really. Can you provide evidence for that?
I could destroy you in any debate on any political topic of your choice.

Irrelevent. I was talking about the goals of neo-cons, not the goals of Republicans. Learn the difference. Maybe it's the age factor coming into play. Your brain is deteriorating from getting older.

It's not the government's job to create jobs. Unless of course if you're a big government liberal who believes in centralized economic planning.

The last time the Republicans controlled the government, they racked up trillions of dollars in debt, got us involved in multiple wars, massively increased the police state, and massively expanded government's role in entitlements. So I have no reason to believe that you're not simply talking out of your ass. Maybe it's the age factor coming into play. Your brain is deteriorating from getting older.

No he's not. Romney's track record as governor proves that he loves big government.

None. And that's the way it should be, because the government shouldn't be involved in creating jobs.

Romney was a corporate raider. It was his job to destroy jobs.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Romney is a big government liberal. When are you neo-cons going to admit that to yourselves? Maybe it's the age factor coming into play. Your brain is deteriorating from getting older.

That's true, he will massively increase military spending because he loves big government.

Ron Paul doesn't want to do that, you are distorting the facts to fit your radical political agenda. He wants to cut military spending, not defense spending. I know that as a neo-con, you have been brainwashed into believing that there is no difference between the two. But I suggest you learn the difference if you want to have intelligent debates in the future.

Or maybe it's the age factor coming into play. Your brain is deteriorating from getting older

Liberals don't have pacifist views on foreign affairs. Again you have been deceived by right-wing media. The liberal Harry Truman got us involved in Korea. The liberal LBJ got us involved in Vietnam. The liberal Bill Clinton was bombing the hell out of Iraq and got us involved in Somalia. The liberal Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan.

And those are just wars. We don't even have to get started on how both liberals and neo-cons agree on other forms of isolationism like protectionism, economic sanctions, overthrowing democratically elected governments, etc. The foreign affairs of neo-cons are FAR closer to the foreign affair stances of liberals than Ron Paul's are.

First of all, there is no evidence that Iran is building nukes. Secondly, even if they were, they certainly wouldn't be a threat to the US.

You're so full of (*)(*)(*)(*) it's not even funny. Maybe it's the age factor coming into play. Your brain is deteriorating from getting older.

 

Having great political planks is NOT the same thing as winning an election.

There has been NOTHING wrong with many of Paul's ideas and THEY ARE and will be included going forward.

There is nothing wrong with Santorum wanting a tighter family valued Country that is based upon his religious beliefs...and his wanting at least an even playing field with government intrusion into our lives.

Newt is right of course..he would destroy Obama in any debate held on EARTH or the Moon.
All the others from Perry to Cain to Pawlenty had great and freshly different ideas than what Obama is selling.
The idea of a Primary season is who can best sell.. organize..fund raise and deliver that message best to the people..It is not FAIR..just..or even supposed to be ..( if we remember my complaints about MN and IOWA )..it is also a TEST who can over come mistakes..weaknesses..political in fighting..press made up gaffs..

Obama got a FREE pass last time because they wouldn't attack him because it might in flame an entire race...so democrats and women took one for the TEAM..and look at what happened.
We got everything most of us conservatives said would happen..higher taxes..and lower services..NOTHING WAS ASKED of the lower class and poor..just the upper class was to pay..and NOBODY prospered under Obama..

Romney is NOT perfect..but we have a chance to show that conservatives can accept a MINORITY RELIGION..and THAT alone will drive many independents to think of Republicans growing that TENT LARGER instead of shrinking it around a narrow religious focused candidate.
Nominating a QUALITY CENTER conservative is not a bad thing..just as electing a QUALITY DEMOCRAT for PRESIDENT isn't all that bad either.

The country must come first.. not the party or the church.
You can deal with your morality issues at a more personal level with your God and church.The nations economy and defense MUST take top honor of
elect- ability and That must bring the nation TOGETHER..not drive it apart further.
Romney's victory speech last night shows he has that mentality..That commitment to America's excellence..not to his Church or his party.

Jobs and the economy is what he knows best..the politics is what he is learning...

OBAMA was just the opposite.

The difference is up to us to make..not any 1 person.
It is time for the conservatives to accept and gather round the guy who this week alone won over 175,000 more votes than the runner up.
The voters have spoken..its time for some to listen.

Romney 2012..
VP ?

Huckabee..is my top bet..
Jeb 2nd and Rubio a close 3rd.

anyone of those would unite that conservative base in a hurry.

 

Romney has never done anything to indicate that he would reduce the role of government, whether it be in healthcare, economics, gun control, or anything else. He's as progressive as Obama, but with an R by his name.

Paul is showing the way to liberty. Romney will simply continue in the jackbooted footsteps of the evolution of the power of the executive as he takes us another step closer to totalitarianism. Not that Romney will ever be president. Why would anyone elect a progressive like him, when the one in the White House does the job just as well?

You useful idiots in the GOP are ensuring another 4 years of Obama, and probably 8 years of Hilary after that.

 

No, not necessarily, because in my case I was a gifted child getting two double promotions in the formative years of schooling.

The goals of paleos/neos/log cabin/moderates/independents and rinos alike will all be the same come November when they come together to form one large love fest in beating the the current socialist pig, and we won't be dipping our fingers in purple ink or saluting to the hammer and sickle flag to do so.

Where in my former response did I say anything about having the government create jobs? Other than utilizing govt for any and all of military needs, I say we should stop sending tax monies to that behemoth starting yesterday.

Other than you being wrong on that tirade against Republicans, can we now say that your bashing of we Republicans/Conservatives again makes it quite obvious that you're a full fledged liberal with perhaps progressive/marxist leanings?

Romney cut taxes in the former taxachusetts and ended up with quite a sizable rainy day fund in the end; and lets not forget that he had to do this with a liberal majority in the state senate. Quite an accomplishment if I do say so myself. Sort of like working against all odds--only to shine through in the end.

Can't disagree with you there, although you still seem to be vacillating between liberal and Conservative ideology. Hard to take a rigid stand, ain't it?

Say what? This is a prime example of what I call trash from a youthful and inexperienced political novice trying to be funny with a serious topic. Romney created jobs while obama is destroying jobs. Nuff said with that nonsense of yours.

You don't get out much do you? Have you read Romney's 57 page outline on his jobs and energy independence plans to boost our economy? No, I didn't think so. No where in his plans and no where in his history of producing jobs and bailing out the Olympics from sure disaster did he ever use government to do so.

Like I said before, the military is the only part of our government I support, and thus, Romney would make sure that we don't reduce the number of nukes like obama has done, and he will make sure that our military missions have all the tools and $$ they need to do the job correctly. The safety of our nation stands in the balance.

Look, paul is a dove at best, and frankly I'm getting weary talking about the guy, so I'm done talking of losers.

Funny how I being a combat veteran of the Vietnam war have seen liberals protest our involvement in the Nam, abscond to Canada to escape the draft, see LBJ's former attorney general Ramsey Clarke speak at war protest events at the Wall etc and become Saddam Hussein's lawyer over in Iraq to defend that dictator, watch liberal John F. Kerry throw his medals over the White House fence all the while calling we Vietnam soldiers rapists, murderers etc. If our liberal congress at the time hadn't stonewalled Richard Nixon's plans to bomb the sh*t out of the Ho Chi Mein trail--then America would have won that war, but with liberal protests at home and a touchy feely liberal congress--we surrendered with our tails betwixt our legs.

Overthrowing democratically elected governments? LMFAO! Which governments in ther Mideast would you consider as having democratically elected governments?

Yeah, and I walk walk through life with blinders on. There is plenty of evidence that Iran has nukes. No one took Hitler seriously, and it seems there are a few folk like yourself that don't take Iran's threat of annihilating Israel and America seriously either. You're the type of guy that looks askance at reality, but will quickly jump on the band wagon of those preparing for the Mayans' end of the world prediction come December 2012.

 

Look up the word PRAGMATIC...and apply it to Romney..
Partly because he is a Mormon..

They cannot just glue themselves to any one set of ideas..

He is a better politician than Paul is because of that.

 

Yes, he's a better politician. He's willing to do whatever is necessary in order to gain more power for himself and therefore reward his friends and contributors. He is willing to be the puppet of the corporatists and banksters in order that he might be the top bureaucrat in the American Empire and therefore as close to a godhead on Earth as one can get these days.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, does not compromise and is only interested in one thing: restoring liberty to each and every individual in the various states. You want a progressive statist with an R by his name. The Democrats want a progressive statist with a D by his name. In the end, we get the same thing.
That's called "pragmatism" by people who are afraid of the responsibility that real liberty entails.

 

So telling people what they want to hear and then doing the opposite makes him a better politician?? Wow...that's classic...

 

Age factor? Age means nothing. He's 23 and your likely over 40, and he's way more aware and informed than you could ever hope to be.

All you have to do is look at Romneys record and you'd see that he's in the same mold as Obama and Bush 2.

 

NOPE..

Leading by how the people want to be led..Is a classic...
Instead of leading by set ideological teachings and personal gains.

People in Mass. wanted Romney care..
They liked his gun law..
they liked his balanced budget..

and if you invested with Bain you saw 113% return on your money..and I bet you would have liked that too..

Everyone says they want unity and government from the middle...meaning a BALANCED approach.. you get that with a conservative theme behind it..

Unless you dont want America to recover.. you can Vote for the GUY who said anything to get elected..that IS ..PRESIDENT OBAMA..

 

Umm...yep...

http://the-opinionated-fool.blogspot.com/2011/11/mitt-romney-flip-flops-is-this-who-you.html

 

Good for you. Does that mean you're more educated than the average adult right now, or that you just had a time-developmental advantage over other students as a child? If it's the former, I'm sure you'll have no problem demonstrating that claim by adequately rebutting all of my points. If it's the latter, then it's completely irrelevent to your ad hominem assertion that it must be the "age" factor, in a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor attempt to discredit my argument without actually discrediting my arugment.

Funny, I would have thought an adult that was gifted as a child during his formative years of schooling would be intelligent enough to not make ad hominems and have blanket, black and white opinions and equally illogical statements.

Only to replace him with another socialist pig, ie. Romney.

Of course not, that's the old, outdated style method of doing it. The new style method is taking the State Socialist Hat off Romney and giving him a new label: "conservative".

Your ardent support of the Republican candidate indicates that you favor government creating jobs. Romney very much favors central economic planning that will be used to actively create jobs. Most obvious is the Federal Reserve System being used to manipulate interest rates and the money supply in order to affect job growth. But that's just one example. We can also talk about how Romney's plan doesn't cut federal spending at all but increases the debt. Of course that govt spending will be used to create jobs.

So although you didn't directly say it, you indirectly said it by throwing your support behind any of the candidates aside from Ron Paul.

So you don't like big government unless it's the type of big government you support? Gotcha.

Your say-so is not good enough. Nothing I said in that "tirade" was factually incorrect. Unless you'd care to prove otherwise.

I see you're resorting to ad hominems again...inaccurate ones, this time. You're moving on up in your dirty, logically flawed debate tactics.

Please explain how me being an ardent advocate of a free market far to the right of what you advocate makes me a "full fledged liberal with perhaps progressive/marxist leanings".

I bet you don't even know what the difference is between progressives and Marxists.

Good for him. He also implemented a healthcare system that Obama framed his after.
Quite an accomplishment if I do say so myself.

That's because your worldview has been limited to seeing things in terms of liberal vs. conservative. The reality is that it's not about liberal vs. conservative - it's about Collectivism vs. Individualism.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE"]When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version - YouTube[/ame]

I wasn't trying to be funny. Unless you'd care to debunk the video.
That's the problem with you old timers. You put far too much trust in politicians to solve your problems. This is because you are old and inexerpienced political novices that you don't even recognize a crooked politican when you see one.

No he didn't. Government doesn't create jobs. The free market creates jobs.

How can Obama be destroying jobs if the unemployment rate is falling?

It's only nonsense if you choose to ignore facts and statistics.

Politicians don't create jobs. Only the free market does. When are you neo-cons going to get this through your head.

There's nothing wrong with reducing the number of nukes we have. We already have enough to blow up the planet many, many times over.

So would Ron Paul. That's why he is overwhelmingly supported by the military, far more than any other candidate.

I agree. Potential blowback from our reckless foreign policy makes us WAY less safe. That's why Paul is overwhelmingly supported by the military, far more than any other candidate.

That's understandable. Of course you'd be tired of talking about him, becuase you make things up about his positions that are inaccurate in order to defame him. And then you got called out on it, and didn't know how else to respond. I understand. We can move on now that you've effectively admitted that you were completely wrong.

You think only liberals went to Canada to escape the draft? Why, because they didn't want to become sacrificial pawns for the imperial state? Sounds to me like they were freedom-lovers trying to avoid tyranny that was identical to the Soviet Union.

Not all Vietnam soliders were like that. But some were.

The liberals started that war to begin with. Do you really think it was intended to be won in the first place?

I wasn't talking specifically about the Middle East. I was talking about the entire third world. But since you asked...when we installed the Shah in Iran in 1953 is one example.
Rick Santorum has already proven that neo-cons aren't up to speed on the history of US-Iranian relations.

No there's not. You and I both have baseless opinions that Iran is attempting to acquire nukes (which I do believe they are), but there is no hard evidence out there. The same mentality got us into Iraq where there ended up not being any WMDs. Oops. Let's avoid that happening again, shall we?

That's because they'd never get away with that. Israel would covertly destroy their nuclear capabilites long before they'd come close to getting it. Why do you think Iranian nuclear scientists have been getting blown up by car bombs? Israel is more than capable of protecting itself, that's why.

 

double ummm.. Nope.

http://www.whyromney.com/

The complete story..not edited clips.