Blues, Not specifically directed at you but the Ron Paul mentality of not caring or not trying to stop another Obama term.
Fair 'nuff. Beyond having voted for Paul in the Alabama primaries, I am not a Paulie by any stretch of the imagination though. I never base a single thing I say about Romney or any of the other so-called "conservatives" who ran on what Ron Paul says or thinks. I base everything I think about Romney or anyone else only on what I know of them.
I think you missed my point.
Actually, if you think my previous post had anything to do with Ron Paul, it is you who missed my point.
You may think you know what Romney is all about but that's not the issue. It's all what Obama is all about!
Wrong. It's about what each one of them is all about.
So all Romney is for is power for himself. What specifically is your evidence for that?
Evidence: He runs as a Republican but governs as a liberal Democrat. He finds access to positions of power by lying about his leftist ideology. Why? The only reason that makes sense is that he perceives the path to power is through appealing (through rhetoric, not through deed) to what constitutes a majority in this country; slightly right of center voters. If true conservatives made up that slight majority, there's no way he could get away with representing himself as a Republican, yet supporting unfettered access to abortion, even for kids, gun control, including an assault weapons ban that is still in effect in MA, bailouts, and the list goes on endlessly, and you and everyone who is going to vote for him
knows it's a virtually endless list of transgressions against conservatism.
If conservatism stands for the premise of constitutionally-restricted, as-small-as-possible, non-intrusive government, and Romney has spent his entire career appealing to voters who support those memes to varying degrees by lying about his support for same, what other conclusion do you come to besides he just sees having an (R) next to his name as a ploy to acquire power? Granted, it's a conclusion I make on circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts across this country every day. I'm comfortable with the conclusions I've drawn on the evidence I have available to me. I don't need a confession from him that he's a phony, power-hungry liar, his reign in government thus far is proof enough of that fact for me.
BTW he was not my first choice but he is the only chance to rid us of the current "agenda" of Barry O.
OK. So list the agenda items of Barry Soetero that Romney will eliminate. Abortion? Nope. Gun control? Nope. Government takeovers of private industry? Nope. TARP? Nope. Quantitative Easing? Nope. Amnesty for illegals? Nope. Reducing the influence of the UN over America? Nope. Limiting the authority of the Federal Reserve? Nope. Reducing the size of government through elimination, or even just cutting the budgets of the Dept. of Education or the EPA or any of a hundred different alphabet-soup agencies? Nope. While he supports a plan to slow the growth of the deficit, does he support and/or have any plan to actually cut deficit spending? Nope. Repeal ObamaCare? Well, maybe, except for leaving in the parts that Republicans in Congress like(???). Even at that though, he'd be all for every state having mandated health insurance just like he instituted in MA. He has
no credibility on ObamaCare, as he is virtually the
author of it!
I did receive an answer to my question I sent to Romney about his stance on the 2A. It was right down the middle white bread BS you would hear on the Sunday morning talk shows. Yes like you I would like a major commitment to the Constitution by a candidate I would be voting for but this is what we are left with.
Nope, this is what
you're left with. I am left with a choice that doesn't conflict with my conscience. If voting for Romney doesn't conflict with your conscience, that's fine, I don't presume to tell anyone how to wield their vote. I simply explain why I am not making the same choice. I will sit this one out because I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who has the record Romney has on abortion and gun control, because I made up my mind long before this election season that those are two issues which I am no longer willing to compromise on. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul or any other candidate with me. If there's one thing fellow conservatives should support each other on, it's the application of a strong sense of right and wrong in determining which candidates they do or do not support. It has been a source of great consternation for me that I cannot count on that support from many of the so-called conservatives on this site.
A strong win by non Democrats in congress would go a long way in moving Romney in the right direction.
History,
as recent as just last January, exposes this meme as complete and utter Fantasyland thinking. It is a provable myth that Republicans in Congress care any more about your rights than Obama himself does. Glad to provide more citations than just that one if you need 'em.
That wont happen with Democrats commanding control of both houses and it certainly wouldn't have that affect if Repubs won but Barry O was still around.
Or if Repubs won and so did Romney. The faces of tyranny would certainly look different, but tyranny is coming whether it comes wrapped in a Republican package or a Democrat package. In fact, it's already here, and has been since long before anyone ever heard the pseudonym "Barack Hussein Obama."
This is not the best or any reason to vote for Romney but it does give some insight into what he is like.
He donated his inheritance from his father to his college. He said he made his own money and didn't need it.
He closed down Bain Capitol and got all his employees to help in finding another employees kidnapped kid sending many to NYC to canvass the area and other type of help.
When he worked on the Olympics he did it without pay and he didn't even take an expense account. He used his own money.
That's all well and good, and if it matters, Romney has kudos from me for all of that. But it amounts to saying that Obama is a good dad or a loyal husband or whatever. While true, it has nothing to do with how either of them do or would govern. Only their records while in government gives us insight into that, and like I said before, their tracks in that regard are completely parallel.
I say he is better than Barry O and he will not intentionally destroy America.
So it matters to you whether or not our country is destroyed intentionally or unintentionally? It doesn't matter to me, and I'm not nearly as sure as you are that Romney's destruction wouldn't be intentional anyway. Surely he's had enough education to know by now that gun control is not what our Founders envisioned for America, yet even at his most-supportive of gun rights, when he wrote to you to answer a specific question you asked of him, he came up short, right? How much more intentionally destructive could he be than to not only wish for, but actively govern in such a way as to take away the rights our Founders gave us specifically so that we could effectively resist the tyranny that gun control is
always preceded by?
We will then have time to have things "evolve" so we can eventually have a true "Constitutionalist" in office instead of never recovering from the "Fundamentally reformed United States"!
We don't have time to change things that have already happened. We were "fundamentally reformed" away from the original Constitution the second SCOTUS appropriated for itself powers that were not articulated in that austere document when they decided Marbury v. Madison. That was like 1803 or somewhere in that neighborhood. We have been "fundamentally reforming" ourselves ever since, sometimes through legal, constitutional means, and sometimes not, but however it was done, We, The People remained asleep and/or willfully blind to the reformation. One thing Obama
has done that's positive in my mind, is woken people up to the truism that, as great as our country has been, we are not immune from succumbing to tyranny. What he obviously
hasn't done though, is wake people up enough to make them want to look back beyond his single term in office to find the other usurpations that We, The People let go by without so much as a whimper of protest. All these posts saying that Romney will "give us time" to figure out that which we turned a blind eye to for literally two centuries already, are not comforting to me at all, and I sincerely fear that if Romney "wins," y'all will just go back to sleep thinking you saved the Republic when all you saved was a phony facade, an empty shell of what we let slip away a long time ago.
So like I said before, go ahead and vote for Romney if it makes you feel good. I won't criticize you. I just refuse to blind myself to the truth that he has no possible potential to save this country, and I won't go against my deeply-held convictions concerning abortion to follow you.
Blues
