Bill Whittle: If you don’t vote for Mitt Romney you are ensuring the election of Barack Obama

Bill Whittle answers the “lesser of two evils” question on a new PJTV show called “Election Hot Seat”. And he’s pretty forceful about his position that any protest vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, or no vote at all is ensuring the election of Barack Obama. But he takes it one step forward and said that if we reelect Barack Obama, we may never have the chance to win another election because of Obama’s “fundamental transformation”.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Great video. Now we just need the Paulbots and the folks voting for Gary Johnson to watch it….

    • RonPaulSupporter2

      We’ve watched this stuff before. It won’t change our minds (at least not mine anyway). Please, just give up trying. We’ve heard it all before, nothing new here.

      • Orangeone

        I totally understand where you are. I have real difficulties with some of Romney’s positions and am struggling now to pull the lever for him, just ask my fellow bloggers here at Scoop, but if it comes down in this election to saving the freedoms my family fought for, I’ll close my eyes and do it not because he’s my favorite candidate but because it’s my responsibility as an American to support the foundation of what our country stands for.

        I live in MN and was ticked off that the delegates voted their personal position for Ron Paul instead of they way our caucus votes landed. You’ve made your point. If you want any of Ron Paul’s legacy to be implemented, you need to vote for Romney and then work with us at Scoop to hold Romney’s feet to the fire to implement things Ron Paul believes in like auditing the Federal Reserve.

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          How do you hold his feet to the fire? What does that mean? Once he’s in the oval office, there’s not much you can do other than not let him get there in the first place. Most of the citizens of this country didn’t want Obamacare but we got it anyway, right? Politicians don’t do the will of the people. It’s as simple as that. How many years have we been promised by politicians to “lessen or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil”? Are we any less dependent? No. How many years have politicians been fighting “the war on poverty”? Have we eliminated poverty? No.

          Republicans and Democrats have run the debt up to 16 trillion.
          Republicans and Democrats have supported the money inflating federal reserve for years.
          Republicans and democrats have given us the (arguably) un-Constitutional Dept of Ed, Dept of Energy, Dept of Housing and Urban Development.
          Republicans and Democrats have gotten the USA into (arguably) un-Constitutional wars.
          Republicans and Democrats created Social Security which many say is clearly on its way to bankruptcy ( and also arguably un-Constitutional).

          And you want me to vote for…………

          A republican or a democrat?

          Obviously, I could go on and on with other examples of the mess both parties have gotten us into but I think you get my point.

          You know, a classic definition of “clinical insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

          Please accept my sincere apology. I don’t mean to dump this all on you but O hope you can see where I’m coming from.

          I just don’t trust the man to do what he says he’ll do, sorry.

          • Nukeman60

            You know, a classic definition of “clinical insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result‘ – rps2

            Well, then, let’s hope you didn’t vote the same way in 2008 that you plan on doing in 2012. We will win the election this time around with or without your help, and you will benefit from it. If we lose, you will suffer right along with us.

            I don’t understand why you claim we can’t hold Romney’s feet to the fire, with both House and Senate hopefully in our grasp, when you can’t promise you can hold Ron Paul’s feet to the fire either. That’s an inane argument.

            Paul either goes along with Congress or he vetoes everything the Congress tries to do. Which one of those scenarios are you looking at?

            Whether Romney does what we expect or he doesn’t. We know what Obama wants to do and it’s unacceptable. With Romney, he does what we want, or the power we gained in both 2010 and 2012 will put us in a position to gain more in 2014 and 2016, with a new party. The day of the progressive, on both sides of the aisle, is over.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Yes you’re right, I can’t hold Ron Paul’s feet to the fire either. And if he fails, then I would look to someone else the next time around.

              You cannot prove that we’ll be better off with Romney as President. You only have a conclusion based on what you BELIEVE to be true. After researching his positions, watching videos of him speaking, etc., I feel the same way about Ron Paul. I believe we’d all be WAY BETTER OFF under a Ron Paul presidency than any president in the last 100 years!

              I believe we’ve been lied to and pissed on as a people by both the republicans and democrats for many, many years. They’ve both done nothing but make this country worse and worse with each passing presidential or congressmen’s term and I’m tired of it!

              If you look back at Ron Paul (his videos are all over youtube), you’ll see that his message has been consistent for many, many years. There are very few (if any) politicians that I can say that about. So, at the very least I believe I can trust him to do what he says he’ll do.

              Romney has flipped his positions IN ONE WEEK more times than a hamburger at a fast food joint. I’m sorry, I just don’t trust him.

              • Nukeman60

                I believe we’d all be WAY BETTER OFF under a Ron Paul presidency than any president in the last 100 years!‘ – rps2

                How is it you can say that, if he is against Republicans and Democrats alike. As Obama showed us, to get anything done constructively, you need to make reasonable compromises. And I’m not talking about the compromises (read capitulation) that the RINOs have done for years. I’m talking about getting things done that the people want.

                Obama had the House and Senate to himself over two years and got nothing constructive done. Obamacare was certainly not constructive. Romney will not go liberal on a Conservative Congress, so yes I can say with some certainty that he won’t go rogue on us.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  He’s not against republicans and democrats. In fact he has more in common with both parties than he has in difference with them.

                • SoLongSong

                  No man can served two masters….

                • satelliter

                  So you admit your “political party” is your master… That’s the problem, too many people let their “party” do their thinking for them… Parties need to be eliminated so people would have to LEARN something about the candidates and vote for a person and not a party.

                • Actually, he has more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans…

                  Pro-Drugs, Pro-Prostitution, Anti-Morality, Anti-Religion, Anti-Military, Pro-Iranian-Nukes, Anti-Israel, etc. etc.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Because he understands you can only regulate morality to a point. In the meantime, our present government spends BILLIONS every year to do this and for the most part fails miserably. He’s not anti-religion, anti-military, or anti-Israel, or Pro-Iranian-nukes, you do not understand his positions. Like many who comment on Ron Paul, you have no clue as to what he is actually saying. You need to listen to him carefully, obviously you’re not.

                • No, he ACTUALLY IS…it is YOU who misunderstood him (because apparently you hold the position that I do, and if you KNEW that he really does support those things you wouldn’t be voting for him).

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Nope, sorry dude, can’t agree with you on that one.

                  I’ve been reading him, listening to him speak (thru youtube) since 2006 when I first learned of Libertarianism and discovered Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Gary North, Lew Rockwell, The Cato Institute, etc. I have a very good understanding of what he (and Libertarianism) is all about.

                • And I heard him, out of his own mouth, say that we instigated 9/11/2001 and (in regards to Iran and Nuclear Bombs) “Why not?” He claims they don’t want to destroy Israel, but then when you listen to THEIR OWN WORDS they say they do! He is ALL about sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything will be okay, and I just don’t agree with that.

                  He also thinks we need to shut down all of our overseas bases, and just GIVE them to other countries…because wouldn’t it just be great to have China or Iran set up military bases in all of our FORMER strategic bases?!? Give me a break…his foreign policy is suicidal and capitulative…

                • factsobill

                  Objectivity isn’t your strong side,Huh?

                • I think you meant “Strong Suit”…

                • factsobill

                  Not a card player didn’t see it like that. If that floats your boat……

                • mike3e4r7

                  That’s why they call them Paul-bots, Brian. Stuck on stupid. Don’t waste your time.

                • That was the conclusion I had going into the debate, and he just got done yelling at me for using that term! LOL!

                  So in the interest of furthering the debate, I dropped the “Paulbot” label and made an independent re-evaluation of the situation given all the current evidence available…

                  …and came to the same conclusion! LOL!

                • mike3e4r7


                • PhillyCon

                  Dude, you are too funny.

                • He didn’t say we ‘instigated’ 9/11, he said it was a response to our foreign policy. A murderer may kill someone in response to an insufficient provocation, but it doesn’t mean they ‘instigated’ being murdered. It is just idiotic for the next person to do the exact same thing the first person did that got them murdered. You need to look at policy and history to determine policy in the future. BEFORE 9/11 Ron Paul SAID there would be more terrorism here given our foreign policy. Then when it happened he wasn’t supposed to say ‘so can we change it now?’

                  However, the reason you don’t understand us is that none of your candidates are transformational.

                  I’m sorry I can’t explain it to you, but I hope you get a chance to find out for yourself.

                  Meanwhile, I’m writing in Ron Paul, because we should be ashamed as Americans to be responsible for EITHER Obama or Romney getting to be president, and what it will continue to do to our nation. And because Ron Paul is the one I trust, actually trust, to be president.

                  It is a rare thing to be able to cast a vote like that.

                • “It is a rare thing to be able to cast a vote like that.”

                  -and a retarded thing to cast a vote like that, when you KNOW it does nothing but hurt our nation.

                • Arrrggghhh

                  I vigorously object to the term Paul-bots. I much prefer Paul-tards.

                • Chevypowered


                • PhillyCon

                  SO TRUE!! THANK YOU!

                • Nukeman60

                  Well, one thing’s for sure. Ron Paul will not win this election. Gary Johnson will not win this election. Sarah Palin will not win this election. Even my favorite, Newt Gingrich, will not win this election.

                  It’s either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. You, like me, have to decide whether Obama will be good for us or Romney will be good for us and then we have to accept it. However, after that, watch for November 7th.

                  Either way, there is a movemnet to start a new party. We should have done it in ’08 to be ready for this year, but we weren’t ready. We’ve taken baby steps in ’08, ’10, and now ’12. With the proper preparation and more steps in ’14, we will be ready once and for all to take over in ’16. Like I said, the progressives on both sides of the aisle are finished. Either the Republicans are with us or they are gone.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Interesting point.

                  Not sure I agree with you that the republicans will be gone though.

                  I think a more likely scenario is that they’ll TELL US they’ve changed, they’ll ASSURE US they’ve changed, they’ll MAKE LOFT SPEECHES TELLING US HOW they’ve changed, then we’ll elect them as we always do, and they’ll continue to do the same thing they’ve done for years and years and years and years, and years……

                  Are you getting the feeling I really, really don’t trust government….LOL!!!!

                  Thanks for the spirited debate anyway.

                  All the best to you!

                • The House and hopefully Senate if Reid will lose are going to be conservative. And we’ll keep on replacing liberals and RINOs with Tea Partiers who will hold Mitt accountable if he errs. Under Obama we will lose the country, he gets around with executive orders anyways, and we’ll have to deal with being called “racist” over and over until the day of reckoning. We can ask Dick Lugar. It’s open season on RINOs.

              • famouswolf

                We don’t have to prove obama would be worse than Romney.

                It is so self evident that only those totally ignorant of what obama is, or want to see the USA go down in flames or perhaps are suicidal would not vote against obama.

                If we can’t hold Romney’s feet to the fire if and when he demonstrates it necessary then at least the odds are much, much better that we can even have more elections.

                Just please carefully consider what people here are trying to tell you.

                For what it’s worth, I am a big supporter of Sarah Palin. I hear part of the attempted character assassination on her and her family was done by Romneys surrogates. True or not it really ticked me off, and even a few weeks ago I was determined to just sit it out because of those rumors. But I am not by nature suicidal.

                Please help us get rid of the monster(s) in the White House. If Romney is as bad as you think let it be a problem for another day. There is no point in destroying whatever hope we have to make a point, and that is what a second term of obama means. There really isn’t.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Thanks for the sincere reply.

                  Well obviously I’ve opened the proverbial can of worms with this post. There have been so many replies that I can’t keep up with them all. My hand is starting to cramp from all the typing! LOL!

                  Anyway, yes, I will consider voting for Romney and have already done so. Believe me I do realize the gravity of the situation. For me it comes down to this:

                  vote my conscious and with my principles (probably 3rd party)


                  vote to compromise my principles and not follow my conscious (Romney)

                  I guess for most of the folks here it’s a “no-brainer”. Unfortunately, for me it’s not that simple. I think I’d be kicking myself if he doesn’t do what he says he’ll do after I’ve voted for him. I guess from that perspective it’s the same as throwing away a vote anyway while and at the same time compromising everything you believed in before.

                  Also, I would feel like a jerk and loose any credibility that I have if I then bash him (because he didn’t do what he said he would) and then when asked who I voted for have to say Romney. If I was listening to a person bash Romney then say they voted for him, I wouldn’t think too highly of that person. I guess I’d be asking them,

                  “Then why did you vote for him in the first place?”

                  I know that might not make any sense to you, but it does to me.

                  Anyway, that being said, trust me I do realize how serious this election is.

                  One stat that I read recently stated this:

                  If you take all the presidents from 1948 (Truman I think) up until GW Bush, combined they’ve had a total of 39 months of unemployment over 8%.


                  So, yes, I do understand how bad the situation is and another 4 years of Barack spells doom for the USA. We will become Greece. We’re already the USSA in my book and I’m not even sure we will ever reverse that.

                  Again, thanks for the sincere reply.

                  All the best to you.

                  Now I’ve got to rest my hands. I can’t type anymore! LOL!

                • This is a secret ballot the last time I checked. You don’t have to share who you vote for or why. You just have to make a logical good guess about what, at this point in time, will be better for our country, the day after the election. That’s the only question you have to ask and you are the only person you have to answer to. Unless Obama does win and you helped in that win because of your principles. At that point you will have to answer to our Country too.
                  Personally I will vote for Mitt Romney because i have prayed about it and received an answer to my prayers that he was who I should vote for. That’s another technique you might try.

                • “I guess for most of the folks here it’s a “no-brainer”. Unfortunately, for me it’s not that simple. I THINK I’D BE KICKING MYSELF IF [ROMNEY] DOESN’T DO WHAT [ROMNEY] SAYS [ROMNEY]’LL DO AFTER I’VE VOTED FOR [ROMNEY]”

                  So I guess you’ll be shooting out your kneecaps when you see what Obama’s gonna do (you know…more of the stuff he’s already done, plus some of the stuff he’s promised to do, in addition to all the other Socialist stuff he can’t yet admit to in this country…yet…). And the funny thing is…you KNEW there was LITERALLY a 0% chance of getting Ron Paul (or whatever Big Bird character you decided your “principles” would allow you to vote for).

                  So I’ll just say this: if you’re intending to switch to Romney at the last minute, you better tell people now because there are a LOT of Lemmings out there following you to OUR grave, and they will NOT be smart enough to do the same at the election booth…YOU are enabling their bad decision, and giving them legitimacy as a “movement”…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  I don’t have to tell you anything! You’ve been quite condescending and insulting to me throughout this entire post and I’m tired of it and you!

                • My entire point here has been to SHOW YOU the fallacy in your arguments and position, and also to SHOW YOU that your statements are NOT without effects. You are LEADING (whether you mean to or not) a movement to sabotage our election (unintentionally, I believe).

                  The ONLY reason I’ve taken the tone that I have with you is because past experiences with similar people have proven that a respectful, conversational tone got me nowhere. So, I’m trying a new approach, and it seems to have worked quite better actually.

                  I believe you probably are a good person, but I have a BIG problem with the fact that you are being so irresponsible with the words you are wielding, leading other people astray and encouraging them to throw their votes away as well…those effects are almost impossible to be undone.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Not going to reply other than to say this: You don’t deserve my respect.

                • I haven’t even been “mean” to you. In fact, I regularly debate people with far more passion than I have with you. So either you are feigning outrage, or you are very innocent (the latter being more likely, given your stated beliefs). Either way, you need to get over that. NONE of my posts were meant as a personal attack, and yet you took them as such…you took my ARGUMENTS as PERSONAL attacks. Do you see how crazy that is?

                  I’m sorry you got offended by what I’ve said (I really am…I don’t want you to be hurt by anything I’ve said), and while I admit I’ve been “blunt” (intentionally so), I have NOT been mean (maybe a little childish, but not mean). Therefore, if I have lost your respect it must be due to our debate, which means you cannot respect those that have different opinons than yourself and can relate those positions better than you can.

                  Well…I guess we CAN agree on something finally…

                • satelliter

                  I can respect your argument but you are just a little too self-righteous to be convincing. Because someone doesn’t follow your advice doesn’t mean they are stupid.

                • I didn’t say he was stupid for not following my advice. If anything, I said he was stupid for convince other people to follow him in throwing away his vote to get Obama re-elected. Re-read the ENTIRE argument, because apparently the context got lost somewhere…

                • StuckinIL

                  I admire that you do not want to compromise your principles, but am heartened by the fact that you do acknowledge the gravity of our present status in assessing your action in this election. Consider this: If Obama gets another term, you may not have the option to elect a Paul or third party candidate in the next election or ever. With all that Obama has ‘accomplished’ in his first term (setting up the foundation of ‘fundamentally transforming’ our nation), think of what he will do in a 2nd with considerable more ‘flexibility’, as he not so long ago infamously expressed when he thought no one was listening.

                • StuckinIL

                  I admire that you do not want to compromise your principles, but am heartened by the fact that you do acknowledge the gravity of our present status in assessing your action (or lack thereof) in this election. Consider this: If Obama gets another term, you may not have the option to elect a Paul or third party candidate in 2016 or ever. Fear-mongering?? With all that Obama has ‘accomplished’ in his first term (setting up the foundation of ‘fundamentally transforming’ our nation), think of what he will do in a 2nd with considerable more ‘flexibility’, as he not so long ago infamously expressed when he thought no one was listening.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Thanks for the sincere reply. I greatly appreciate it.

                  Tough being public enemy no 1 in debates like this! LOL! (Only kidding!)

                  All I can say is I will continue to weigh the gravity of my decision between now and the election.

                  Thanks again for the reply.

                  All the best to you.

                • StuckinIL

                  Good Sunday morning RPS2 (actually it’s now evening as I had to interrupt to go to my son’s in Chicago for the day), This is a bit of a delayed reply because I had been out of town, but I wanted to thank you for your reply back. I just returned to the thread to see if you had posted more, but it seems to have run out over a week ago. We have only a few days left now. I just got off the phone with my son who, as of a month or so ago, was not going to vote. He is now in full agreement with me that we are at an extremely critical juncture in our history and he is enthusiastically waiting to cast his vote on Tuesday. I hope you have been or are coming to a point where you have resolved your struggle. Of course, I hope that resolution resides on the side of casting a vote for Romney which, like it or otherwise, is the only action that can realistically take out Obama. But I would also hope you could feel affirmed in taking such an action as opposed to the cliched ‘holding my nose and pulling the lever’. I attended a big event in Chicago last night with a good friend, ‘One Night Only’, sponsored by WIND-AM560, featuring all of their talk show hosts (with the exception of Mike Gallagher, who was sick)–everyone from the local hosts to Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Guy Benson (actually editor of Townhall as opposed to talk radio), Michael Medved, and headlined by Dennis Miller and Glenn Beck. It was a packed house (we had to wait over an hour to get out of parking at the end!) and the enthusiasm was electric–an awesome evening! I leave you with a few thoughts in addition to my earlier expressed wishes. I watched/listened to both Romney and Obama’s ‘closing speeches’ delivered in OH on Friday. Perhaps you did too and, if you did not, you obviously still can on YouTube. There was one thing in particular that really hit me as it was presented from Obama’s speech…I guess you could say the ‘promises’ part: That’s why I want to cut the growth of tuition in half over the next 10 years. (Applause.) That’s why I want to recruit 100,000 math and science teachers so our kids don’t fall behind the rest of the world. (Applause.) That’s why I want to train 2 million Americans at our community colleges with the skills that businesses are looking for right now. That’s what real change is. That’s my plan for the future. That’s the America we’re fighting for in this election. Forward.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Thanks for the sincere reply.

                  Just so you know (and I don’t mind telling you) that I did vote for Romney. In fact I voted for every republican on the ballot in my district. Unfortunately, I live in a “blue” state so it really didn’t matter anyway. I could’ve voted for anybody else or even wrote in a candidate and it still wouldn’t have made a difference.

                  As disappointed as I am in the election result, I was lucky enough to read this on Wednesday morning…


                  After reading this it at least allows me to make some sense of the whole thing. Please read it when you have a moment. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

                  Thanks again for the sincere reply.

                  All the best to you.

                • StuckinIL

                  Hello RPS (by the way, my name is Charlotte!),
                  Thank you for sending the link. The writer cuts to the chase, defines the essence of the problem and I agree with him 100 percent. I was also not familiar with this website and have now added it to my list, which I will forward on to others. I have an article to share with you that similarly cuts to the core:
                  I feel better today, not about the immediate and mid-term state of the country, but for the bolstered strength and conviction I feel within, something I’m not sure would have been there, strangely enough, had the election gone the way I wanted and expected. I have found that has often been the result of having to confront untenable, undesirable situations or circumstances. Perhaps this is the only way we’ll get to where we need to be. I’ve talked with several people today that have echoed the same theme that I’m feeling. I actually am reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (documents I have not read since high school!) and have downloaded John Quincy Adams address delivered at the Jubilee of the Constitution in 1839 and am about a third of the way through. I have reasons for reading these, which I’ll reveal later if you’re interested. Keep the faith; renew the spirit,

                  Subject: [trscoop] Re: Bill Whittle: If you don’ t vote for Mitt Romney you are ensuring the election of Barack Obama

              • librtifirst

                For most people in this venue, Paul blows it on foreign policy. I believe in a massive change in foreign policy as well, but I just wanted to point that out. The issue of “voting for the lesser of two evils”, and “a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama” will be decided by individuals based on their perspectives.

                If Romney is just a decent guy who holds most main stream conservative values, then I can see why people would be his advocates, in opposition to Obama. On the other hand, if Romney is just an establishment insider seeking to be in control the “one” agenda, then it doesn’t really matter much.

                Pro revolutionists with a “one agenda” perspective might not even vote, or will vote third party for the reasons that people do, and are. This includes the perspective that compromise has put us in this position, and it has to end somewhere. Some actually believe that Obama staying in will bring revolution faster, and will cause people to think outside of the box more, which will wake people up to the idea that the the two parties are a sham, and don’t really disagree on the national level.

                The Paul people put the system to the test in the primary, and revealed a lot of truth about the system. If Romney wins, then the Paul people remain “freaks”. If Obama wins, then many give up on the GOP and move further right, into the hands of third parties and Libertarian concepts. This has already been happening, and will continue at a rate that will be determined by future events. Romney getting in means that many stay asleep to many realities that are systematic in nature.

                Whittle seems to be a decent guy, and very intelligent. That doesn’t make him right on all points. Nobody is. At this point in the game, he may be right, but he may also be wrong. It depends on where conservatives go from here.

                As it is, most main stream conservatives don’t buy into the idea that election fraud can decide an election. That is one factor that would simply negate everyone’s opinions on this issue. Whittle mentioned “voter fraud”, but it is entirely different, as election fraud is in counting the votes electronically. Politicians have known for many decades that election fraud is where it is at, because as long as the populous believes that their vote counts, the establishment can count the vote however they want to. This was another issue that was proven in the primaries by Paul supporters. It is undeniable for those who have actually studied it.

                Main stream conservatives have made progress with Obama in office. They hated Clinton, but Clinton received cover from the conservatives in congress. This time around, conservatives are forced to go beyond prior restraints in criticizing Obama, which has opened the door for conservative voters to consider more in the realm of conspiracy. Obama has not yet taken them to the level of considering conspiracy on the conservative side. The switch has not taken place as a general systematic problem, so conservatives are not yet factoring in the things that need to be recognized in all elections, and on both sides. They may be aware of much of it, but refuse to calculate it with these factors, and with a continual progression of thought.

                Third party thinkers are ahead in their willingness to condemn both sides, consider that they are not much different, if any, and move on to the next step regardless of the short term consequences. In essence, they are more committed to the cause of real change, and therefor are more resolute in their decisions. It is natural for those who have not progressed to this train of thought to consider them to be outside of rational thought, because they cannot relate in a fundamental way.

                It is what it is. If everyone stays involved in the process, and brings people into the fold of involvement in politics, these progressions will continue, and could have an effect. The question is, how long do we have to change the system before a societal collapse, because that will be the end of any prospect for short term change, and the result of the collapse could put us under authoritarianism for a very long time.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  WOW! This maybe the most incredible narrative I’ve ever read during my time blogging on this site!

                  My hat’s off to you!

                  Excellent points all around!

                  There’s hardy anything I don’t agree with here. You are quite the author and I can tell your thoughts are very well organized and extremely well presented.

                  I hope to be able to communicate my points as well as you do in the future.

                  All the best to you. Again, excellent post!

                • white531

                  Best comment I’ve seen on this subject. You should be teaching college classes.

                • librtifirst

                  Thanks. I don’t think they would let me in, because I didn’t complete the high school level of government programming. I dropped out at 16 years old. In retrospect, I don’t think that the last two years would have benefited me in any way. College wasn’t my path, and it is now failing to yield any real benefits for millions of people.

                  Statistics now reveal that when student debt is calculated into an equation that figures out the increase in income for college students over a lifetime, the students are actually making less money because of their college education.

                • white531

                  You have a thought process and a command of the English language like that, and you dropped out of high school? Incredible.

                • librtifirst

                  Thanks white. I don’t know where it comes from. I haven’t done anything to build on it, other than blogging, and sometimes I wonder where it comes from.

                  I can tell you this: I have avoided mercury filled vaccines, fluoridated carcinogens in the water, and chemical ridden food. All of which are know to decrease IQ, and cause neurological damage. Maybe that helps.

                  My great grandfather went to school through the third grade, and he was not illiterate, or mathematically challenged. When I was a kid I would watch him tally the bills for people who were U-picking. He would weigh the strawberries, and instantly multiply the weight with the amount per pound. It was freakish how good he was. He was born in 1899, and didn’t have the chemical infiltration of society as he was growing up, or for most of his life.

                  Have you ever wondered why neurological diseases are becoming so prevalent in society? (or chronic diseases for that matter)

                • white531

                  Our food chain has changed so dramatically in the last hundred years or so, it would be almost unrecognizable, to someone living in the last century.

                  “Better living through chemistry.” That used to be an ad for DuPont.

                  I hear what you’re saying. Probably off topic here, but this thread is about finished, anyway. Here’s a link for you about healthy living. Not meant to be a comment on the chemical aspect, but its a site I use, to help me stay on the right track. Enjoy.


                • librtifirst

                  Thanks for the link. I will probably study it for a while, and visit it from time to time.

                • white531

                  “Better living through chemistry.” Remember that one?

                  Here’s a link you might enjoy. Not about chemicals, just healthy living.


                • librtifirst

                  Looks Like the guy has figured some things out. I’m not an evolutionist, but I agree with the premise of his assertions based on creation. It works either way. I actually eat a balance of the things that he lists, and supplement daily with products from a company called youngevity. I think that what we “don’t” get in our diet is as important as what we do get. Our bodies can heal themselves, but they need the nutrients. The combination of ridding ourselves of the bad stuff, and putting in the good stuff can cure most things in society.

                • It’s an interesting post, but after the last four years with decline far worse than any time before, another Obama term will lead to that societal collapse. At any rate, cheering on another Obama term is an extremely dangerous and detrimental notion.

                  Not only Democrats have felt the heat but RINOs have too. People now get that both parties should be accountable, which is not the same as being suicidial. Dick Lugar got voted out in a primary. The late Arlen Specter also felt this heat, as did Olympia Snowe although she wasn’t likely to lose her primary but left because of the pressure on those like her.
                  If Romney governs as a conservative, good for him. If he doesn’t, he’ll feel pressure from the Congress and the people.

                • librtifirst

                  I don’t disagree with you about Obama. I think that my reasoning might be a little bit different. I see a collapse as being an imminent proposition, rather than a long term possibility, and one that stems from a systematic perspective, and not a partisan ideological one. I think that your ideology runs parallel to mine, but I don’t think that Obama and Romney are ideologues. I believe that they are just power brokers, who’s reality exists behind the scenes, and politics is just the medium that they have chosen to achieve their goals.

                  Romney does come from a different area of influence, which is the corporate world. Obama was brought up through the system for just such a time as this. We see our national politics as being a sovereign US issue, when in reality global and corporate influence actually runs the whole show.

                  The media is corporately controlled, and is the primary reason that the American public can be influenced to move back and forth between political paradigms, which serves the purposes of those who broker power, money, and influence around the world.

                  I do believe that the people still have the power to destroy their choke hold, and the corruption, but it would require many things to happen that the populous is just incapable of as a whole, psychologically speaking. As history has shown us, a small percentage of people have always been the ones who caused the massive change required to end tyranny. That was history, and they did not live in a technocratic police state of control. As it is now, we don’t have the actual power to stop the invasion of our sovereignty, because the military industrial complex has grown to global proportions, and will be used in any country to stifle any rebellion. We also lack the power because we don’t even know who the real enemies are.

                  It is my opinion that we are on the precipice of global domination by the anti-Christ system, and that Satan is our real enemy. Satan’s greatest tool is our spiritual weakness, and he uses this to control the populous of the world through corruption of our governments.

                  For me, the bible tells a prophetic story that mirrors global events in our time, and it is like watching a story play out on a stage, and the world is just one big stage.

                  That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t fight it. On the contrary, it is our duty as Christians to battle the powers and principalities. We have to identify the enemy, and we fail at that, as a people.

                  As our founders did, we need to reject government as having power over us. You know how that is going. Government needs to have a very small amount of authority over the people for men to remain free, and the people have to be willing to revolt when they cross the line. The south lost the battle for states rights, and that opened it up for the federal government to take whatever they wanted in the long run. We opened the door to Satan, and he now runs the show.

                  I would challenge anyone to put themselves in the place of a Paul supporter, watch any “primary” youtube video that you can find, and put the pieces together. The alternative media are the only ones who covered it, with the exception of a few reports here and there. This requires those who don’t like Paul to consider evidence from sources that they don’t normally accept. I am not talking about circumstantial evidence alone, but simple facts and numbers as well.

                  Consider that the rule changes, that were fraudulently passed, at the RNC, were a response to the influence that the Paul people were gaining on the establishment during the primary. These were people who followed the rules to gain influence, and were stomped out by corruption, and the system had to change the rules to keep this exposure to a minimum in the future.

                • Which sources people normally wouldn’t accept? The left-wing media?

                  I actually saw one of Alex Jones’s movies “The Obama Deception”.

                • Interestingly enough, Mr Rachel Maddow actually reported on a lot of it. Granted, she revels in exposing GOP corruption, and that was why, but she actually reported it.

                  John Stewart actually did a few skits on it.

                  Ron Paul supporters recorded a lot of it at the caucuses and such.

                  These just are not “credible” sources to many. The thing is, the left tells the truth when it benefits them, and so does the right. The rest of the time, well………….they ignore a lot. It’s not about investigative journalism anymore. It is about left/right bickering, most of the time.

                • satelliter

                  The pendulum swings….. as it always has throughout history. It has now, in our government, been swinging toward corruption and authoritarianism and has about hit the limit. Any continuation in that direction (no matter who is in office) will trigger an uprising in the population to reverse the direction. If Obama is re-elected and continues his march into communism, the armed citizens of the country will stop him and install a new government. Both major parties are corrupt and neither is good for our country. This trend will be reversed eventually no matter who is elected, but it will be reversed much sooner than desired if Obama is re-elected.

                • I agree with most of what you said, but there will be no armed resistance to install a new government. That idea is a noble one, but not a practical one.

                  What most people fail to understand is that we do not live in a sovereign country anymore. The military industrial complex is a global one, and it will be used to stifle any rebellion, and in any country. When I tell people that foreign troops have been training in the US to go house to house confiscating guns and taking people to processing camps for the last twenty years, they just act like “it can never happen in America”. This sentiment is foolish because it already has happened in recent times. Our own military went into New Orleans and did just that. The tactics that we are using in foreign countries have already come home to roost.

                  The FBI infiltrates literally all militias, and knows where everyone is and what they have. They will be the first ones targeted. Our veterans are already being targeted by the feds. They are being detained and determined mentally defective, then having their right to bear arms taken away. Returning vets from the wars are on the top of the list of possible terrorists. The government’s war on the people has already begun. The Patriot Act and the NDAA are simply there to get government minions to view their tyranny as legitimate. When the time comes, they will have a literal army of goons to come down on the people with. Foreign troops will be called in to assist. NATO will be in the US, and US troops will be spread around the world doing the same thing in countries like Canada and those in Europe.

                  Polls have been taken, and a lot of Europeans say that they would not have a problem with doing this kind of thing in the US. They have had their rights taken already, and many don’t like us much.

                  The NWO doesn’t have a problem with us killing each other. When our system crashes, they will simply stand back and let it happen. They will quarantine cities and allow the nightmare to play out. 99% of our citizens don’t even have the resources or independent lifestyles required for a sustained rebellion. Government will take over literally every aspect of our society and infrastructure.

                  Our politicians that are selling us out will be out of the country, or in massive underground cities that they have been building.

                  In the short run, people need to have a survival plan, and they need to be resource independent to weather the storm. In the long run, the success of the NWO will depend on how much our citizens in the system will be willing to do for them. Since the government will have all of the resources, there will be plenty of people who are willing to do what they are told.

                  The only real solution to the problem is having a military coupe of some kind, or an internal rebellion to the system. I don’t personally see that happening, and I am not willing to go meet my making while in the act of killing people that don’t even understand what it is they are doing.

              • Okay, so if Obama does win, just exactly what are you going to do? Do you people honestly think things will be better if he wins?

                • satelliter


              • You’re under the impression that we have enough time for a “next time around.” We don’t.

                I’ve said this multiple times on my FB page and my site. Strategies, tactics, and the Stockdale Paradox. If you’re not familiar with the Paradox, here is it:

                “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

                Our strategy is to get the US back to our founding. Our tactics are in part to elect constitutional conservatives who will lead but not be exclusively responsible for that endeavor; action does not end at elections. The brutal fact we’re confronting right now is most of us don’t have the candidate we’d hoped and worked for. So what? Romney won, and we will support him. We must.

                Our reality is we’re in a mess that could get immeasurably worse, quickly. We don’t have time for petulance. For certain, an Obama victory will make things worse. Our chances improve significantly if we elect Romney. Any action deviating from electing Romney will compromise our ability to make things right.

                Personally, if we fail I will hold anyone who doesn’t vote for Romney responsible.

                • satelliter

                  Been hearing that argument for 50 years, nothing changes but the faces. I’m tired of it, I’ll actually exercise my right to vote for the person I believe is best for our country. That is the whole reason our system was set up that way, so everyone can make their choice. Unfortunately so many people have followed the lead of their “party” for so many years, it has become very unpopular to actually cast a vote for anyone other than who the party “decides” who you should vote for. You think you have a choice in electing a president? Yes you do, you have the choice to vote for the person “the party” decides to offer. Our system was designed so people can vote for anyone, yet most people just vote for who their party picks for them. If obama or anyone else in office gets to far out of control, “we the people” will rise up and remove him (or her) from their lofty position. I have more faith in American citizens than I do a political party.

          • Garym

            Are you writing in Ron Paul or are you voting for Gary Johnson? I would say if you are writing in Ron Paul, then you are a loon, like Brian Jones says below. If You are voting for Gary Johnson, then you are voting your principles.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Please, I asked politely in another post to stop with the insults. And yes, calling me a “loon” is an insult.

              I don’t know what I’m going to do as of now.

              I know Congressmen Paul’s name will unfortunately not be on the ballot.
              I like Gary Johnson but need to learn a little more about him before I decide.
              I don’t dislike Romney, but I don’t trust him to do what he says he’ll do either.
              I can’t stand Barack.

              • XXIIFan

                I won’t call you a loon, but THE CHOICE IS CLEAR!!! Voting for the lesser of two evils is far better than allowing the greater of two evils to win. I could understand voting your conscience if you were voting on whether you would go to heaven or hell. If you are going to vote for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or Alfred E. Newman then make your choice and soothe your conscience. They each have exactly no chance of winning and the result of your choice will be the same. However, if you love this country and want to stop, or at least slow, the downward spiral, than go out and vote for the lesser of two evils. Like Bill, I like Mitt Romney more and more each time I see him. For me, THE CHOICE IS CLEAR!!!

              • YoungMamaCon

                I really believe Whittle is right on about the next election in 2016. Fraud, deceit, and amnesty will make our vote powerless. After watching D’Souza’s film 2016, I am more convinced than ever that Obama lives to destroy this nation’s sovereignty. I see this election as life or death.

              • white531

                The man is right. Stop with the insults. Engage with him in dialogue, if you will, but stop with the insults. He came here in an honest manner, and he represents himself well.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Thank you. You also represent yourself very well. Most of you guys and gals here are tough to debate and I respect that and welcome the challenge as it only makes me stronger for my next debate.

                  All the best to you.

              • Even if Mitt is the lesser of two evils, that’s what Ghaddafi and Mubarak were compared to the Muslim Brotherhood tyrants who overthrew them and Mitt’s clearly not as bad as them. :O
                They at least kept their countries stable.

          • Orangeone

            I do understand your frustration and I am also frustrated.  I am a small business owner and will be slapped with 12 of the 21 ObamaCare taxes. In fact, I am one without a waiver to get slapped with a 40% excise tax on my health care premiums because I purchased very good health insurance many, many years ago and pay high premiums for the coverage.
            There are many ways to hold Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire, our vote is only one way.  We are a people with voices.  He has a history of listening to his constituents which is very unlike politicians.
            There is a difference with Mitt Romney.  He is a businessman with a turnaround record.  He turned around MA, he turned around the Olympics.  Both were in deficit positions and when he left had surpluses without raising revenues.
            We need jobs in this country, we need the burdens off business owners, small business owners in particular.  Here’s one example for you.  Under ObamaCare, my small business tax rate will jump to 43.4%.  If my business were taxed at Romney’s 20% rate, the difference to my company is the ability to hire one full-time employee.
            My other hope is with Paul Ryan.  Paul Ryan too has a solid history of listening to constituents.  Paul Ryan is also a friend of Ron Pauls and openly admits many of Ron Paul’s policies are solid and will work to implement them.
            I personally would like to see Ron Paul as the oversight authority of the Federal Reserve. That is his strength and have communicated that to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
            For the sake of this country, we need Romney/Ryan in our White House.

            One final example.  MA has RomneyCare.  Mitt Romney has listened to Americans and has vowed to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with true patient-centered care. He could simply have said what’s done is done and moved on.  He didn’t.  He stepped out there and committed to repealing Day 1.
            We have a chance with Mitt Romney, we will lose our freedoms if Obama is re-elected.
            Please consider joining me by pulling that lever.  Romney is not the preferred candidate for either of us but he is the Conservative nominee and our best chance of defeating Obama.

          • factsobill

            I am an avid supporter of Ron! He ran his best race ever! I believe the tactics used by some activist supporters in the caucuses was at the bottom of the treatment he received at the RNC. Gary Johnson is a great Libertarian Candidate. At this point I have already already cast my mail-in ballot ;Yea Romney!You are totally right if you vote for what you believe. I think your distrust is projection.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Thanks for the support. I know Ron Paul is a tough sell on this board but I’m OK with that. As long as the comments aren’t vitriolic I’m willing to debate anybody and feel I can hold me own with the best of ’em!

              Thanks again for the support!

              All the best to you.

              • factsobill

                People of character always have a choice! Ciao!

          • Dixiequilter

            You make several compelling statements. And I totally get your frustration and anger. However, the last sentence is interesting. “I just don’t trust the man to do what he says he’ll do, sorry.” So what assurance do you have that your guy will do what he says he’ll do? How is he different? Voting for someone other than Obama or Romney will not elect that person anyway but reduce the number of votes for Romney and help Obama stay in office. So, from that I understand you trust Obama and want him to continue. If that’s the case, then why don’t you just vote for Obama?

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Thanks for the sincere reply.

              The bottom line is nobody has any assurance of anything. I understand that.

              However, if you look at a potential candidate like Ron Paul, you can go on youtube and see videos of him speaking 25 years ago and conveying the same message he does today. He has not changed his position. He has been a Libertarian and a student of Austrian Economics for many, many years. In other words, he’s consistent, he believes what he says, says what he believes, and doesn’t falter from that position. A true person of integrity. That’s the kind of person I want in the White House!

              Barack is a liar. We all know that. But how anybody can believe Romney when he says (for example) that he’s going to repeal Obamacare when he created Romneycare is a little hard to swallow. Romney has flip-flopped on issues more times than a hamburger on a fast food joint grill. And that’s only part of the reasons why I don’t trust him.

              So, if I can trust Barack and I can’t trust Romney, I”ll look to another candidate. If I do look to another candidate it will probably a Libertarian candidate because at least I believe in Libertarianism. Gary Johnson did a great job as governor of New Mexico. He cut taxes, cut spending, and helped to turn that state around. In other words, a proven record of the kind of leadership I beleive this country needs now so that’s where I’m leaning and why.

              Romneycare is Mass., as far as I understand, has been a disaster. Costs are up and legitimate LEGAL aliens (as I understand) are having a hard time getting coverage. That’s not a track record I get the warm fuzzies about.

              Anyway, I realize the choice I have to make and it still might be Romney. However, I four years passes, and our current fiscal situation has not improved to the point I think it should’ve. Then this all will be a great big goose egg failure!

              I’d bet dimes to dollars that that’s where we’re gonna be in four years, more debt, higher inflation, still high unemployment, etc.

              I guess we’ll all just have to wait and see.

              Thanks again for the sincere reply.

              All the best to you.

              • You said “if I can trust Barack”. You probably meant can’t.

        • There is more here than meets the eye. First, I am not a Paulbot support and have to make this clear. However, there is something more underlying than that. It is the fact that for some Christians there is obvious reasons why voting for either major party candidate should give a person pause.

          Here are a couple of articles that address the issue better than I can speak, but it is there for all to understand: and

      • ConnieConservative

        Like Chevypowered ^^^ up above, I BEG you from the bottom of my heart
        to please vote against this dangerous administration. Our nations future does
        depend on it. My cousins grew up in communist controlled Eastern Europe.
        I am grateful my parents brought me here as a toddler I want my children and future generations to have the freedom I grew up with. Please vote against Pres.

        Romney / Ryan. 2012

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          Thank you. I appreciate your heartfelt reply and respect you for it.

          Trust me, I’m on the fence right now whether to vote for Romney or third party. I do understand the gravity of the situation and what another four years of Barack and the democrats in charge will mean for the US.

          However, I believe voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us to this point in the first place. Yeah, Romney may make things appear to be a little better during his presidency by lowering some taxes and the like. But he won’t balance the budget, he won’t reduce our spending by the 1 trillion we need to reduce it by to really get us working again, he won’t overturn Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, etc. and might not be able to overturn Obamacare without a majority in the Senate. And even if he does, he wants to “replace it with something else” (read: another government program, can you spell “Romneycare”?).

          But even with all that said, I know I still might have to pull the lever for the a$$hole anyway.

          Again, I do appreciate and respect your passion and sincerity. I promise you this, I will give it a lot of thought.

          All the best to you.

          • Orangeone

            Please see my response above. I will help in any way I can. And BTW, well to Scoop. We are a great group of freedom-loving Americans and we blog with each other and discuss our concerns. It helps me alot. This group was great when I was giving Romney he!! on illegals during the last debate (hot issue for me). And I love this group because of their wisdom and support.

            BTW, some of the regs, like Sarbanes-Oxley have held businesses in check with the handling of stockholder funds. Dodd-Frank, on the other hand, has twisted things horribly but one gem is more control over broker-dealers who have also been abusing investor funds. We need some of these regulations but they must be reasonable.

            • 1tootall

              Sarbanes-Oxley has aided NO ONE, especially the shareholder. And instead it has added millions and millions to the cost of operations side of the income statement….needlessly. There is not one example of anything that S-O has actually done to protect the shareholders. If there were anything, it would have been splashed all over the papers. It’s just one more attempt to make life miserable for corporations in our country.

              • Orangeone

                I disagree.  Shareholders have been protected more than they will ever know.  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act requires companies to have proper internal controls in place. US Companies did not follow that law which is why the initials costs were so high.  Companies were absolutely gouged by the accounting industry after Enron because the compliance was required.  The only thing SOX did was require companies to insure they were working.  Do a little research.  Sarbanes-Oxley helped lead to the discovery of the Petters Ponzi scheme and a significant number of massive frauds, Koch ring a bell?  One small portion of Dodd-Frank will reign in the broker-dealers and their insider trading schemes.

                • 1tootall

                  Your broad brush strokes paint a picture of generalities. I am afraid it is not convincing nor compelling. My son worked for a public co. as an IT specialist. He said that SOX added $1.5 million to overhead. Just who do you think pays for that? “more than they will ever know” ?? How about just knowing? shareholders don’t want “more’ than they will ever know. That’ not why they put their money into the co. They want a profit, and this ridiculous act is a huge impediment to that end. BTW, Enron was (and MCIC for that matter) were buddy boys of the left. That part of the story is hardly every mentioned any more. Solyndra will end up the same way. But in fact, ENRON’s problem would never have been solved with S-O. There were plenty of laws on the books already. And once they were discovered, they were tried. They figured out how to run the scam, with our with OUT the law. So the knee jerk reaction of adding MORE laws when you won’t enforce the ones on the books is nonsense and meaningless.

                • Orangeone

                  I’m glad your son worked for a public company. That company, if they spent $1.5 million to initially comply, was a piss-poorly run company.  A vast majority of costs were incurred because of run-away IT departments that did whatever the heck they wanted and held management hostage and ran up costs because of what they wanted rather than an efficient way of running the IT function.  The greatest number of noncompliance reports were also issued on IT departments.
                  The vast majority of public companies have been surveyed and have admitted that after the initial year of compliance they have financially benefited far in excess of the compliance costs.  They also admit that had they been in compliance with the FCPA they would not have had the initial compliance costs.
                  Please speak not of which you know nothing.  Many of us know the intimate details that lie within public companies.  Enron most certainly would have been exposed with the requirements. The proof is in the whistleblower and the way the law is structured.  The same is true in the Petters Ponzi scheme.  The same is true in the Koch case. And the same is true in hundreds and hundreds of cases you don’t hear about. But the real proof is in the prevention of frauds that would otherwise occur if oversight were not in place.
                  If shareholders were not happy with the compliance efforts, they wouldn’t invest.  Have you checked the stock market since 2002?

                • 1tootall

                  I don’t think you give a rats’ tail about my son or a public co…you obviously resent public cos. You have put many words in my mouth that I did not say…something libs like you do to continue to build your strawmen. No one said anything about initial compliance, did they? Your words. No one said anything about “runaway IT people”…you did. Many of you know details..really? like what? how a dividend gets paid. Really. The prevention of frauds…While you are out swinging at windmills, that don’t exist, and are not accomplishing anything, we have turning into a banana republic going from #1 in capital formation to #3, and maybe soon to be #4. All because SOX. Just wait until the idiots who wrote Doodle Frank get their way. What country!! What a bunch of losers on the left.!!!

                • hbnolikeee

                  I have worked in IT for the last 35 years and you sir haven’t a clue. You need a better source for your talking points.

                • Orangeone

                  You are actually full of B.S.  Your knowledge wouldn’t even fill my little finger.  Speak not of which you know nothing.  There is a reason businesses, public companies in particular, outsource IT out of the country!
                  You have made some serious assumes and as such should look in the mirror to see the @ss in the reflection.

                • hbnolikeee

                  Try to get your head out of your arse for a moment. I have worked for Defense Contracts and Wall Street and General Scientific Companies. I’m betting you are in charge of the toner cartridge replacement group and doing fine.

                  So just crawl back into your little sewer where you can keep trying to convince that you’re something special. You’re obviously not.

                  By the way: “made some serious assumes” <– QED moron.

                • Orangeone

                  Clearly an arrogant IT jerk who thinks he knows something about finance and accounting.  Here’s a hint, the janitor at the company you work for knows more than you do.  I doubt you can balance your checkbook but I bet that janitor can.
                  I started my own very successful business which has both domestic and foreign operations.  I can run circles around you when it comes to public companies, government contracts and how Wall Street really works.  You wouldn’t understand due diligence unless you looked it up on Wikipedia and then you still wouldn’t understand it.
                  It’s a good thing your computer came with color-coded cables so you can figure out what hole to plug.  Perhaps you should take a lesson and go back to pouring Barky Boy’s kool-aid into the biggest one on your face.

          • conservative58


            With all due respect, you asked Right Scoop bloggers here not to insult you with names (i.e., loons, bots). In kind, would you please refrain from referring to Romney as the ‘a$$hole’?


            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Good point. You are correct. My bad.


              All the best to you.

              • conservative58


                • gunclinger

                  So is pragmatism…

                  The difference between Obama and Romney is like:

                  Do I wanna be shot with a .22 or a .50 cal?

                  Yeah, neither is “optimal”, but one will hurt, the other will blow you to pieces…

          • 1tootall

            I am at a loss trying to understand this “lesser of two evils” mentality. Maybe you can help me. We live in a country which was established as a Republic. In this case, we have two main parties. In no election since the beginning has a third party candidate done anything other than throw elections into territory not foreseen, as opposed to actually winning. It’s true we still have a system that allows us to vote for who we feel is the best candidate. Amen. But this notion that we have two evils is an enigma to me. Where and when do we get the perfect government? Since when, in our 200+ year history have we actually HAD the perfect candidate?? Never. So now we have the resultant two candidates who survived the primary process and you guys claim that they are both evil, (while implying that Ron Paul meets the “not evil” test!!). That’s just not possible. They are all human.and Ron Paul is no more or less evil. In fact, he has a more jaded past than either Romney or Obama, (only Obama is a Marxist and not as old as Paul). But to say you don’t “trust” Romeny….Why? Based on what extensive experience you possess ? What trust do you have for any of them?? The reality is that a vote for Johnson or no vote IS a vote for Obama. That is the reality. The lessor of two evils mantra is not really true…it’s only rhetoric. With 3 candidates, we are picking the lesser of 3 evils. Sorry. So please explain to me why this isn’t true….without some rant or other means. Thanks.

            • You aren’t wrong!!! LOL! Nice post buddy! EXTREMELY well said too! 😀

            • kong1967

              Exactly. This is what frustrates me about evangelicals. They refuse to vote for a Republican if he doesn’t vow to ban abortions, even though he’s not for them and wants to let the states decide (and many states probably would ban abortion). So…..their response is to sit to the side and let a liberal win the election, the liberal that believes it’s ok to perform partial birth abortions, putting a drill in the baby’s skull and sucking it’s brains out, and chopping the poor thing into tiny pieces (intentionally graphic to get the full force of the horrific belief of a liberal). It’s insane. They are destroying their own cause by sitting to the side and letting it happen.

              It’s the same case here. No candidate is perfect, but there are major differences between the two. The differences could mean life or death for our Constituion, our free markets, and our freedoms…depending on our choice.

              Very good post, 1tootall.

            • StuckinIL

              Excellent point–’nuff said.

            • Agree with most of it, but he doesn’t have a more jaded past than “Dreams from my Father” Obama. Obama has very jaded and anti-American views.

          • kong1967

            And you know this how? You are filling in his term for him without giving him a chance.

            Obama was easy. He publicly stated that he wanted to destroy private health insurance. He publicly stated that he wanted to destroy the coal industry. He publicly stated that he wanted gas to be $8 a gallon. He publicly stated he wanted our electricity bills to skyrocket. He has been implementing policies that accomplish all of those things while telling us he’s doing something else (fixing the economy). Any idiot can see that what he’s doing is not designed to fix the economy. He’s peeing on our leg and telling us it’s raining.

            But Romney hasn’t said any of the things you accuse him of what he will do as President. You’re making it all up! That’s some real hard evidence you’ve got there. You are willing to let Obama destroy our country while you sit by and watch because you have a make-believe vision of what Romney is going to do. Nice.

          • white531

            RonPaulSupporter2, as much as he would like to believe it, Brian Jones does not represent this site, or its members.

            He’s 26 years old, full of piss and vinegar, and the only ideas that are important to him, are his own.

            Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of the ideas he represents. I just don’t agree with the way he presents them. He thinks you win arguments by bullying people. He did it with you.

            You came here to this site with a civil attitude, representing Ron Paul as a candidate. An alternative to Romney. I agree with a lot of Ron Paul’s positions. They are just not workable, in my opinion, in the current environment.

            His thought process is clear. He follows the Constitution. He thinks the wars we have fought recently, have killed a lot of young Americans needlessly. I would have to agree. But, we do have to defend this nation, against all foreign enemies. That is the problem I have with Ron Paul. He is soft on the defense of this nation. He would wait until we are attacked, to plan a strategy of defense.

            Can’t do that, in this dangerous climate we live in. On defense, Ron Paul is a Dove. Muslim extremists eat Doves for breakfast. I would have to go with Brian Jones. We need a Hawk. We have to defend this country.

            A vote for Ron Paul, is a vote for Obama. If that is your conscience, then vote your conscience. But know in doing so, you are voting for four more years of what we have already seen. Possibly the end of this nation, as we know it.

            • Boy, it’s a good thing this site HAS YOU to tell them who the bully’s are…

              • white531

                Brian, I agree with you on almost everything, except the way you deliver the message.

                • Ordinarily I am FAR more reserved in the wording choices I make…however, my painkillers have not been working very well lately which has had me waking up already on my last nerve. I USUALLY try not to offend people, but I’m just not going out of my way to beat around the bush anymore…perhaps once my pain is under control again things will go back to normal.

                • white531

                  Brian, I know that. Not about the painkillers, but the fact that you don’t really intend to offend people. You and I got off to a bad start. I share the blame. I’m going to wipe the slate clean, and start fresh. We agree on all the big stuff, and the little stuff is just details.

                  Thank you, for your military service to this country.

                • Fair enough. We did get off to a bad start…that much is DEFINITELY true! LOL!

                  ’til next time buddy!

                • white531

                  Done deal.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Thanks for the well thought out reply. I greatly appreciate it.

              A few points…

              1. Ron Paul is not soft on defense of this nation. What he does not believe is that “military” spending is “defense” spending. The two are very different to him and I agree with him on that. Here’s a youtube video of him explaning that he would want MORE military bases here in the US instead of less.

              2. The very idea of a defense is to PREVENT an attack not counter punch afterwards. Ron Paul will not let us get attacked. In fact we’re more vulnerable now to attacks because both republicans and democrats have refused to properly secure our borders (all of them, land and sea). Ron Paul talks about securing our borders all the time. Again, another youtube video explaining his position.

              There are many more points I could make about Ron Paul that are commonly misunderstood. I feel that you, like many others, do not FULLY understand his positions. That being said, if after you’ve heard his positions, you then decide that you don’t AGREE with his position, that’s a completely different argument, and one that I would and could respect. But again, like most people, I don’t think you understand his argument completely. All that I ask is that you watch at least these two videos of him IN HIS OWN WORDS responding to defense.

              All the best to you.

          • He said in the second debate, and this made me applaud, that unlike Bush he’d get serious about balancing the deficit and cutting spending. He knew the risks of somebody of his particular stature admitting Dubya spent too much and Karl Rove maybe getting red in the face that this was said during a general debate, but this successful businessman said it anyways.
            He listens to small government people. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have Bay Buchanan on his campaign staff to steer him on the right course.

        • Why are you begging them? That’s what they want…they get off on being “in control”, and they realize that right now they are holding us hostage. Don’t capitulate to them…we either win or not, but WE can’t change their mind anymore than a hostage can change their hostage-taker’s mind…

          That’s why I despise them so much…

          • Chevypowered

            Brian, I’m tired. If swallowing my pride helps I will do it brother. If we lose this and go off to Obama-hell at least I can say I did all that I can, but I do get where you are going. We all have a common enemy (Obama) and some RP supporters are throwing grenades back into the camp instead of into the enemies nest!

            • Exactly!!! I’m FAR from an enthusiastic Romney supporter IN THE PRIMARY, but in a General Election against Obama I’m his BEST CHEERLEADER! I’m only 26…I want a future after college (that doesn’t involve Food-Stamps)…

              • Chevypowered

                No arguments here…

      • hbnolikeee

        Ok, blah blah blah and let’s do a triple backflip over the cliff cause its how I feel and the hell with America. Do you not see that these people are literally evil? Have you ever seen such ignoring of the Constitution before? Have ever seen such arrogance and flagrant lying to your face daily and to them it’s all good.

        These people all but wipe their butts with the Constitution.

        Make no mistake, doing nothing keeps thugs and cheats and liars controlling your life and it will escalate. Remember that open mike to the pres. of russia.

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          America has gone to hell because we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils which is still evil. When is it all going to stop?

          • Hey, have you ever considered that because we’ve choosen the lesser of two evils all these years is the reason why our economy has been in better shape than Europe?

            Just a thought…

            • Excellent point!!!

            • PhillyCon

              Yet, another logical coherent point. Whatever happened to reason in this country?

              Also, this “unicorn” of finding a “not evil” person for higher office according to whatever standards out there by certain types is a holy grail type quest that will never result in reality.

              Last I checked, the only person not “evil” i.e. perfect with no flaws was Jesus.

              • EXACTLY!!!!!!! And Ron Paul is NOT Jesus…

          • hbnolikeee

            Sooner than later if you don’t do what is NEEDED.

      • Spartan1975

        you are right…sarc… Maybe you should read a little about WWII and look in the eye of those soldiers, marines etc… that sacrificed so much for you to be living free today!
        They fought together not as one political entity but as Americans!
        Tell them that because of your hurt feelings about who is the candidate, you are willing to piss on their sacrifice…

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          There are a lot of political commentators that have presented evidence that Hitler might never have come to power in Germany after WWI if it wasn’t for our involvement in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

          It is this type of foreign policy that Ron Paul advocates. What would the world have been like now if WWII never took place and Germany was lead my somebody other than Hilter. Perhaps all of those lives that you claim I am pissing on would never have died in the first place. But it’s somehow nobler FOR YOU to send them off to die than for me to say don’t send them there in the first place? Sorry, I cannot follow such immoral logic. It is never moral to send else someone off to die for the sake of others. I think you need to take a look inside your own soul and see if that’s really what you believe.

          • Spartan1975

            lets assume you are right to have stayed uninvolved with Hitler and the nazis…lets assume it was Europe’s war!!!
            What do you say about the pacific theater against the japs… we were minding our own business the morning of Dec. 7 1941!!! Do you think the Japs didn’t believe they were the superior race as well…research a little and you will see that the japs were ruthless killers who tortured Americans and committed unspeakable crimes on civilians!! They had used chemical weapons on the Chinese and were getting ready to do the same on American civilians… To me and many others what these brave men did went beyond the call of duty, they were fighting for our future and I call that American Patriotism, something you obviously are foreign to!!

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              First off, what I said was not to get involved with WWI not WWII. As usual, most people like you are clueless to what I really say and just assume you’re always right. Unfortunately, in this case you’re completely wrong. You didn’t read and understand my comment. Please read it again.

              By the way, we were promised by President Wilson at the time of WWI that he wouldn’t drag the US into the conflict in Europe. He then proceeded to do just that and involve us in the war (what a surprise, another President that broke a promise to the people).

              It was our involvement in the war that lead to our involvement in the Treaty of Versailles which some political commentators say lead to the rise of Hitler. So, my point (which you obviously didn’t understand) is that potentially without our involvement in WWI, Hilter might never have come to power in Germany after WWI and lead Germany into WWII. Hopefully you’re not too stupid to follow that logic but you probably are.

              Anyway, with regard to our involvement in the Pacific Theater of WWII, yes, I would’ve involved us in that as we were attacked and then HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!

              If we had been following the principles of someone like Ron Paul or Libertarianism is general, perhaps we would’ve already had “rings of defense” around the entire US that potentially would’ve thwarted or at least reduced the scale of the attack. At the very least we would’ve had a lot more warning that it was coming.

              One of the main principles of Libertarianism (and of course our US Constitution) is the idea of self-defense. A true Libertarian government would’ve had those “rings” in place for years now and with each passing improvement in military technology, they would’ve been implemented in a way that made our defenses STRONGER. Our current foreign policy actually makes our defenses weaker in that we’re spread too thin for the amount of money we’re spending. Every sane person knows that you can never raise taxes enough to cover all the necessary military you would need to REALLY be the policemen of the world. Instead we defend the borders and interests of other countries while leaving ours completely wide open to any kind of attack. A terrorists with a dirty suitcase size nuclear bomb could walk across the border from Mexico and set it off in Phoenix, Albuquerque, Tucson, San Diego, etc. and we would never be able to stop them! That sucks! And it’s precisely because of our politicians that this could happen. Those very same politicians that vote for more money, lives, and resources to be wasted (read killed as applied to lives) in the Middle East! WTF!

              No, I understand American Patriotism far more than you ever would. The politicans that place our American military in the line of fire for their political will and re-election is about as immoral and unjust as you can get. The “call of duty” to fight FOR another country potentially against your will and arguably most of the American people is also immoral. But , that’s one trait that seems to be a staple of the politician’s character. I guess you’re just like them.

              • Spartan1975

                Why the insults there, I did not insult you… I respect your point of view and you may be a very patriotic person! We just have diferent opinions and for me it seems weird or foreign that a patriotic person like yourself does not see that the country as we know it is at stake. Feel free do waste your vote though…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  When you say that American Patriotism is something I’m “foreign to”, that is clearly an insult in my book. If you saw that my vision of “patriotism” is very different from yours then why didn;t you just say that. No, you’re the one that couldn’t, wouldn’t, didn’t see it. I only fight “fire with fire” when I feel it’s necessary.

                  Also, saying I’m wasting my vote is insulting to me.

                  For me choosing between one kind of evil (Obama) over another kind of evil (Romney) is definitely a waste of a vote. That’s why this country is in the shape it’s in now. We continuously vote on local, state, and national levels for the lesser of two evils which is still evil. However, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose as do I.

                  As long as we continue to elect people that lie to us, cheat us, inflate our currency, take more and more of our liberty and freedoms, impose their will on us instead of the other way around, believe they can run our lives, run our economy, run our society, run other countries political processes, economies, and societies, etc., we’re never going to see a true return to prosperity, liberty, and freedom in this country.

                  Mark my words, the days of 4% or 5% unemployment are gone forever. The rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to get poorer and the middle class will be completely wiped out.

                  We need to make hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cuts to the federal budget now! Romney is not going to do it! Please take a look at this site:


                  The Cato Institute identifies over 780 billion dollars worth of cuts that can be made right now. Has Romney even mentioned anything like this? No! Why, because he’s not going to do it! He doesn’t have the guts to step up to the plate and really make the tough decisions that need to be made in this country. He’s just another RINO like Bush I and Bush II. Even Reagan grew the government bigger during his presidency! After all that how anybody can pull the lever for him is beyond me!

                  Look all around the world, this is exactly what happens when an all-mighty, centralized, and power government exists in a country. We’ve been the USSA for many, many years and there’s no stopping it as long as we keep deciding to elect “the lesser of two evils”. My only question is how long will it take until we become the USSR? We’re already most of the way there! How’d that whole thing really turn out for them? I think the word COLLAPSE comes to mind!

                  Don’t continue to support that theory. Break out of the box, see government and politicians for what they are and realize that only by electing true fiscal conservatives and those that believe government cannot and will not solve our problems, the better off we’ll all be.

                • Spartan1975

                  I agree with you at a certain extent… however to me the election this time around is not a regular one!!! Ron Paul is definetly right on some issues, but he does not have a chance of winning!! Again for me the choice is between Romney and Obama…as bad as Romney is (he was not my choice in the primaries), he is patriotic. He will not work with our enemies and put our national security in danger! More than that I see it that if Romney wins and has a conservative House and Senate, we are going to keep his feet to the fire and we will have meaningfull elections in 2016 where people like Ron Paul can be elected to change the country’s direction…but this scenario does not happen if Obama wins!!!

      • humptydumpty

        I for one am damn glad those fighting the Revelution didn’t say, well I don’t agree with George Washington, so I guess I’ll just quit fighting? Old Benedict Arnold would be a much better man in charge, when he becomes our General, I’ll start fighting for freedom again.

        If Americans just quit and either don’t vote, or vote for someone who has no chance at all? We should just show the surrender flag to Obama and let America become a dictatorship! Personally I’m not doing that! I’m voting for change from the dictatorship style Government Obama is looking to gain.

        Romney/Ryan 2012

    • Spartan1975

      Indeed and to all those voting for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, maybe you should read a little about WWII and put your mind around the fact that you now have freedoms because of the sacrifice of those brave men who volunteered in most cases to defend America in the face of tyranny! These soldiers put their differences aside and fought as Americans not Repubs, Dems or Libertarians…some fought against their own beliefs about war but fought to their last gasp! So be at least courageous enough to admit to those that went through hell on earth in all of our wars that you will vote for “principle” instead of country because you have hurt feelings as to who the candidate is

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Spot-on as usual, Bill. We’ve got to stop obama or risk losing our country. It can’t get any simpler than that.

  • jlbs

    Thanks, Bill. You made all the sense in the world, not that I needed convincing. Romney was not my first, second or third choice but he’s a damn side better than what we have in the White House now. You’re right, if 0 gets back in, it won’t be just for 4 years—it will be for an eternity because we will NEVER have another election in these United States of America. And……you don’t need to get back on your medication——I like you this way!

  • Steven

    On point! Get out to vote. Forget about the polls! Vote for your lives. The fiscal cliff, massive military cuts, full implementation of Obamacare, and more terrorist attacks because of weakness from the White House? Do you really want to see this happen?

    If you haven’t voted already and if you can vote, why haven’t you voted already? Vote, no matter where you are. Vote if you are Ohio, vote if you are in Idaho, vote if you are in Massachusetts. Vote!!! Vote these fools in the White House now out of office and vote for Romney, who has become the candidate we have wanted all along!

    • Chevypowered

      You said it right there “Vote for your lives.”

    • conservative58

      Right on Steven!
      ‘Vote, no matter where you are.’

      Yes, don’t take anything for granted, even if you are in a solid red state like Tennessee!

      • PVG

        Even though this CA is so blue it’s almost black, I voted for LIBERTY!

        • I’m in California too! SoCal actually (Lancaster)!

        • Stephanie T

          And I will do the same. I pray that in January 2013, I will begin hearing the term “President Romney”.

      • famouswolf

        Or even a dark blue one like Washington.

  • It does no good. The Paulbots and other Libertarians ENJOY feeling empowered, knowing that they essentially control a significant portion of the election results. They will continue to be “holier than thou”, and then on election day they will quietly vote for Romney and then continue to bitch when Obama gets elected (as if it was OUR fault we didn’t VOTE HARDER)…

    Once again…they ENJOY the power they hold over our party (who among us does NOT feel like hostages to those loons???)…we NEED to fix that after this election cycle. Ron Paul MUST be removed from the Republican party, and Gary Johnson must also be removed from the GOP.

    It’s time to create some standards in this party, and it begins with honoring the party’s nominee for President (and not throwing temper tantrums and otherwise throwing a wrench into our electoral process, sabotaging the party that got their name out there in the first place)…

    Edit: I just wanted to emphasize, once again, that we should NEVER have allowed Gary Johnson or Ron Paul to run on our platform, given that they are SOCIAL LIBERALS…

    • RonPaulSupporter2

      It does good because it’s about holding true to your values. If I don’t stand FOR anything then I stand for NOTHING.

      The voting process is all about electing the person that best represents your political view. Mitt Romney does not represent my political view nor does Barack. Therefore I choose another candidate.

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Perhaps if the citizens of this country had been truly voting FOR something instead of for the lesser of two evils or just to keep/kick the other guy out, we wouldn’t be in the messes we’re in today. For example, if it wasn’t for our involvement in WWI, there are some that have reasoned that the Treaty of Versailles (which we were involved in) set up the conditions for Hitler to come to power in Germany.

      And please refrain from the derogatory comments about people who like Congressmen Paul. Believe me, I could unleash a torrent of “nicknames” for people who don’t like the good congressmen but if I do I get a slap on the hand from the moderators while you’re allowed to insult us (and yes, calling supporters of the congressmen “paulbots” and “loons” is an insult) without penalty.

      If you want to debate the issue, fine, I welcome the discussion but please leave the “paulbot” and “loon” stuff out.

      • PVG

        We are an imperfect people, with an imperfect system, in an imperfect world. There will never be a perfect candidate. You know what they say about hindsight……please watch the video again.

        • poljunkie

          You said it. But Romney is far better than Obama.

          I am proud of the 98% of us that have figured that out.

          • PVG

            Yep! The stakes are way too high to gamble your vote away! God Bless and preserve this nation!

      • sybilll

        You didn’t listen to a damn word Bill Whittle said, I gather. Most Conservatives have at least some Libertarian tendencies, but neither your party OR ours will see a White House controlled by anything other than Democrats for at least, AT LEAST, a generation, unless Mitt Romney is elected. If Obama is re-elected, the goal to create a nation of dependency will be complete, and breaking that cycle will be like nailing Jell-O to a tree. Wake up, man.

        • He basically proved EVERY POINT I made in my post! LOL!

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          I did listen to a everything he said and just don’t agree with it. The lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL. We’ve gotten to this point because of this kind of mentality for years and I refuse to play into the same hand. Sorry.

          However, that being said, please read my other posts here. I have said to others I’m still on the fence and might vote for Romney because I do understand the gravity of the situation. I strongly believe that principles are principles and if you don’t stick by them, you’re nothing. Obviously, yours are different than mine, I respect that and understand it, believe me. I just wish people like you would understand mine.

          All the best to you.

          • Nukeman60

            We appreciate your honest and open assessments and I hope, for the most part we have been respectful to you. You have to realize that some Ron Paul supporters have indeed come on this site and acted like ‘loons’ (forgive the phrase). Also, many Ron Paul supporters have acted like zombies or robots in regards to Paul (hence the term Paulbots). You have done neither and therefore warrant our respect. Thank you for the discussion.

            I’ll leave you with this one thought. No matter what else we (you or I) may think that Paul, Romney, or Obama will do, the most important in this next 4 years is the possible Supreme Court Justices nominations. There will probably be two this time around and if Obama is there, we will get two more just like Kagan and Sotomayor, which will give the liberal activists the Supreme Court for the next 30 years, at least.

            I guarantee it will take away just about every right and freedom that we both enjoy today and it won’t matter what your principles are, they won’t be respected or tolerated. That is a scary thought.

            • YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!! There is NOTHING more important than getting a Republican in there for the Supreme Court nominee…the nominee may not be Conservative, but he damn sure won’t be a freakin’ Socialist…

            • PVG

              That was my comment above. If we lose the court, it’s over. Not being dramatic, that is a fact!

              • Nukeman60

                Sorry, I missed your post. This is a very active thread tonight. I’ll scroll through and read it. Obviously, a very impressive post, lol.

            • StuckinIL

              Among many, this is one of the most salient posts of this thread. Your point is irrefutable and frightening, indeed.

          • Let me know when you find a candidate that ISN’T the Lesser of Two Evils (or, as you put it: NOT “evil”)…

          • sybilll

            RPS2, thank you for the honest reply. Let me preface my response to you by saying that my libertarian tendencies have intensified the last few years, and I admire your devotion to your stance based on your principles. I stand on my principles as well. I took a vow when I married my now ex-husband to stay with him until death do us part. But when he abused me, I broke my vow, set aside my principles, and focused on self preservation instead. You should do the same. Obama is kicking you in the teeth, and if he gets a 2nd term, your personal liberties on everything from online privacy to use of drones will be a distant memory.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              I’m terribly sorry to hear of your situation. I must say that I got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I read what you went thru. You have my complete sympathy and support for your decision and wish you all the best now that you’ve put that behind you.

              Please understand that I’m very much on the fence about what to do. I know how critical this election is, believe me. I know that 4 more years of President “Barry Soetoro” will spell disaster for the US, I get that. I won’t go into the reasons for my position as they are all over this post and you can read them if you like. Just please understand that it is a serious “internal struggle” for me to walk into that voting booth given the privilege, civic duty, and sacrifices made that it represents, and just pull a lever that my soul and conscience tells me not to do.

              Again, I am so sorry to hear of your terrible past situation and wish you all the best in the future.

        • PhillyCon

          This is too rational an argument, and not enough yelling to be compelling. /

      • Thanks for proving everything I said in my post. And I called you a loon because you are one…you don’t vote for your personal best interest (nor even your country’s), which makes you insane. So while you are getting bent over the desk with no vaseline, and Obama is whispering sweet nothings in your ear (along with the rest of us, I might add), at least you’ll have the comfort in knowing you “held to your principles”…I guess getting raped daily by Obama ISN’T evil by your standards, huh?!?

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          Fine, then go ahead and be a good little republican soldier and don’t think for yourself, just blindly follow the leaders off the cliff.

          You’re the one that’s been contributing to the “desk-job” for years while voting for more and more evil with each passing election. It is people like you that have allowed all of us to bent over the desk by both parties. It’s been going on for years and you refuse to see because of your blind faith for one kind of evil over another. Completely asinine! I’m one of the few whose standing up from the desk and saying ENOUGH!!!

          I’m standing up and saying both republicans and democrats have been giving us the “desk-job” for many, many years. No my friend it is people like you that have lead us here by the ballot box and people like you that will continue to lead us in the wrong direction thru the ballot box.

          You don’t understand, you can’t understand, and you never will understand.

          Also, I asked kindly to refrain from the insults and you haven’t. Fine. If you’re not going to respect me than I’m not going to respect you. I will no longer reply to your posts. If you want to act like a child on a playground, again, fine. I’m not going to accommodate you.

          • I’m 26…I haven’t been voting very long, but thanks for your generalization. I believe the term you are looking for is that I am SANE, and I’m proud of it. Some people are simply incapable of seeing shades of gray, and apparently you are one of those people. Don’t worry…we don’t hold it against you…

            I mean Lenny didn’t know any better either…

            Edit: So all I had to do was insult the Paulbots to get them to stop talking to me!?! Darn, why didn’t you guys tell me sooner?!?

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Don’t know what you mean by “shades of gray”. I believe Ron Paul’s positions are somewhat “gray” in that he agrees with some of the platforms of both parties.

              Again, calling me and others “Paulbots” is completely disrespectful. I ask that you refrain from those names in the future.

              And your sarcasm is completely uncalled for.

              • By “shades of gray”, it means you are unable to see that there are varying degrees of evil. And if you see Romney as “still evil”, then you should never vote because you will NEVER find a candidate that is NOT “evil”. THAT is what “shades of gray” means…you can’t distinguish one gray from another, and which one you prefer. To you, all grays (evils) are the same…

                Edit: Don’t take the “Paulbots” term personally, because I don’t mean it as such (in your case). It’s just far less tedious than typing out “Ron Paul Supporters”, especially since I am very anal about capitalization. So no offense there…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  I have found a candidate that I believe is NOT EVIL, his name is Ron Paul.

                  The problem, to follow your analogy, is the shade of grey keeps getting darker and darker and darker as time goes on (read: more and more and more evil). There is no way to stop it. The only way is to not let it go there in the first place. We’ve already done that and have been doing it for years. The only way to begin to reverse it is to (again following your analogy) ADD WHITE (not as in white as it relates to race but as a color on the pallet of an artist painting a picture).

                  Sorry, but Paulbots is an insult and I do take it as an insult.

                  What you are saying is that we who support the congressmen are just a bunch of mindless robots following whatever the congressmen says we should do. That is not what or who followers of Ron Paul are and it is insulting.

                  Why don’t you just type it out once like this:

                  Ron Paul supporter (RPS)

                  then just use RPS in the rest of your post.


                • SoLongSong

                  Good God….

                • Oh, I hear ya!!! I had NO idea this debate was about to take this change in direction!!! Kinda interesting though…never argued this facet of the topic…

                • SoLongSong

                  You’re doing very well. I don’t know how old this Paulbot is, but you’re sounding a lot more mature, and a lot less delusional.

                • Hahaha! Thanks buddy! Yeah, I’m thinking the debate’s probably over at this point…I’ve made my point (in fact, he’s made my point better than I have! LOL!)…

                • That’ll never work…

                  So let me see if I’ve got this right:

                  The Lesser of two evils = Romney, and the Greater of two evils = Obama
                  The Lesser of two evils (Romney) is still Evil (Obama)
                  But Ron Paul != Not Evil
                  Therefore Ron Paul is the ___??? (You fill in the blank, since we all know Ron Paul is NOT perfect)…

                • Chevypowered

                  I think you just experience pushing a Buick Electra 225 uphill with the parking brakes applied with winds of excess of F-5 tornado going against you.

                  You give it your all but it just ain’t getting through!

                • Yeah, I knew that going into this argument (hence my original post). I refuse to capitulate to these people anymore…if they wanna be outcasts I’m going to treat them like one. They AREN’T Republicans so why do we keep treating them like one? It’s time to pull their Republican Voter Registration Cards to get them OUT of our Primaries, and relegate them to the 3rd-Party Hell they created for themselves, and stop ruining OUR elections process…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Never said I was a republican. In my state I’m registered as “unaffiliated”. From my perspective, you all have ruined our elections process by consistently voting for candidates that lie to you, cheat you out of income thru excessive taxation and inflation, steal your liberty by telling you what kind of light bulb you can have in your light fixtures, how much water you can have in your toilet bowl, etc.

                  Shall I go on? I certainly can continue mentioning all the freedom and liberty we’ve lost over the years at the hands of BOTH republicans and democrats but I’d be writing from now until election day 2016 and the bottom line is you of blind republican faith still won’t believe what you read! Truly pitiful.

                  Judge Andrew Napolitano has written a book entitled “Lies the government told you”. The book is over 400 PAGES. My response to that was:

                  “That’s all, only 400 pages, where’s volumes 2, 3, 4 , 5, etc. each of 400 pages”?

                  Go ahead, you keep believing that this time it will be different, this time it will be better, if we only elect this guy, we’ll get what we want (kind of sounds like obama followers doesn’t it).

                  I know better that if I put my hand in the fire and get burned, I won’t do it again. I guess you haven’t learned that lesson yet.

                • So you’re unaffiliated, and YET you voted in OUR primaries, because YOUR LEADERS wanted to steal our party’s money…real classy…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  No, I am not allowed to vote in the primary elections so “MY LEADERS” (whatever that means), didn’t steal any money from anybody.

                  Just as a side note, Ron Paul does not participate in the congressional pension system and regularly gives back money to the treasury from his congressional budget allowance. Now which party is the real party of thieves?

                • And Mitt Romney says he’s not going to take a Presidential Salary (and didn’t take a salary as Governor of Massachussetts and receives no pension). So…what’s your point? As far as I can tell, he’s given back INFINITELY more money than Ron Paul, especially to charity…

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  No longer respect you. Will not engage you.

                • Hand in the fire…we have our hand in the fire. We know what it’s like to have a term under Obama’s regime. We should learn our lesson and know better than to give him another term.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Fill in the blank? No problem! Ready? Here iit is:


                  Probably not the greatest grammatical sentence in the world but I hope you get my point.

                  All the best to you.

                • famouswolf

                  Ron Paul may not be evil, but his attitude about foreign policy is downright suicidal.

                  I will vote for Romney in spite of misgivings, I can’t honestly say the same of Paul. I’d have to think about it long and hard.

                  Obama vs. Paul? That is a nightmarish choice, imo. Probably Paul, but Romney is far and away the better candidate imo, and thankfully I don’t have to make that decision.

                • I’d vote for Paul over Obama. Mitt said he would. Paul’s people don’t return the favor.

                • wodiej

                  I don’t believe RP is evil but neither is Romney. RP did not win the primary, Romney did. It is what it is. Many people were disappointed their candidate did not win.

                  Gov. Sarah Palin is as constitutional conservative as they get. But she didn’t urge her supporters to get her on the ballot and cast votes for her. No, she did the right thing and got behind TP Senators and nationally gave her support to Romney and Ryan. Ron Paul has not done this. His son Rand has however. He is campaigning for Romney.

                  I don’t know how old you are but something tells me you have not experienced enough injustice, unfairness, grief and sorrow to put things in the right perspective.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Ron Paul hasn’t gotten behind Romney / Ryan because he knows that it’s just going to be more of the same and I agree with him on that. He does not compromise his principles for the sake of party and I also agree with him on that. That’s why I”m not behind Romney / Ryan (at least not yet).

                  BTW…I happen to be 53 years old and have “been around” as they say. I’m a husband, father of two great daughters, a licensed professional, part-time business owner, artist, and musician. I will also admit that I used to be a “conservative” and a republican until about 6 months before the 2008 election. After deciding that I didn’t like either McCain or Barack, I decided to start looking around. So I read, and looked, and read some more, and looked, and read some more, etc. Then I found Libertarianism, Ron Paul, Milton Freidman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Gary North, Lew Rockwell, The Cato Institute, etc. and never looked back.

                • Romney is not more of the same of Obama. They’re two distinct people, one who wants to see America go down the drain embroiled in scandal after scandal who wants to fundamentally transform the country, the other at least will keep America’s life intact.
                  The VP choice is between a guy with the other Paul’s passion for balancing budgets who reads Ayn Rand and a long-time former Senator who race-baits and is personally responsible for drafting the Patriot Act.

          • Just because you know Obama will destroy the country if he gets another term and this is our last chance doesn’t make you a party uber-loyalist. There’s lots of people in both parties we’re holding accountable.

        • SoLongSong

          Your second paragraph, “Edit:….” says it ALL. Ron Paul supporters are every bit as delusional as those still blindly supporting Obama, Blindly Following Ron Paul Off The Cliff (see below).

        • PVG

          BRAVO! A standing O from CA! Thank you for expressing what I feel….well done sir!

        • white531

          Well said, Brian.

        • PhillyCon

          I’m late to this party, but good going. I give you props for trying to reason with these purists.

          Its great to see you, and God Bless.

      • famouswolf

        Don’t really want to debate because it is so simple there is no point to debate.

        obama gets in disaster, Romney the country lives to keep fighting. It is evil vs. normalcy, not a choice between two evils at all.

        It’s your choice, good luck with it. Essentially death vs. continued struggle.

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          Yeah I hear you and trust me, I am considering giving my vote to Romney. Haven’t decided yet though, have to wait and see what happens over the next few weeks.

          • SoLongSong

            You wait a “few weeks”, and the election will be over. Pesky calendar…

            • PhillyCon

              I sincerely hope the poster does not live in OH, FL, VA, or any swing state.

              • SoLongSong

                Lucky for us, I live in Iowa!

                • PhillyCon

                  Yes! As I do in the Philly burbs which usually decide how PA goes.

                • SoLongSong

                  All’s we can do is all’s we can do. With or without the wolf in sheep’s clothing, I think it’s going to be a landslide for Romney – even with all the dead people voting.

                  Edited to add: Wolf in sheep’s clothing refers to the other delusional guy on this thread. Didn’t see which post this was going to (but his pic is a wolf in sheep’s clothing).

                • PhillyCon

                  No, I did not see it. But apparently, we are all voting for evil. LOL.

                • Better parties… LOL!

                • Nukeman60

                  …even with all the dead people voting.‘ – sls

                  Are you talking about the Chicago voter base, or the Libertarian voter base? I can’t find the difference right now. 🙂

                • wodiej

                  lol…awesome snarky.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Oops! You’re right. Sorry about that.

              Man, that date is fast approaching!

              I guess I should’ve just said wait until Nov. 6th or something like that.

      • white531

        I respect your beliefs, but you simply don’t understand the political process. My guess is, you never will. You, and others like you, will help re-elect Barack Obama.

      • wodiej

        What you’re saying basically is what you like is more important than what is good for the country as a whole.

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          Well, “good for the country” is a matter of opinion. I think there are much better potential presidents than Romney that would be “good for the country” in my opinion.

          And no, I don’t think Romney will be “good for the country”. All he is is NOT AS BAD AS OBAMA.

          Either way the choice stinks. It’s kind of like choosing between this car that’s a lemon or that car that’s even worse of a lemon. Either way you’ve still got a lemon.

          • I’d take Clinton over Obama. At least Romney would put our country in the right direction. He’ll be good for the country, unlike Obama who has an obvious hatred of the country he at least loves it.

      • You may find some solace in the arguments laid out here:

        Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them. Ephesians 5:6-11

    • BlueGood

      For what it’s worth folks, up here, our Conservatives were fupped duck for 10 years….TEN YEARS!!!!!

      FINALLY…after people like me SCREAMING at both sides, they merged the TWO Canadian Right Parties…The Canadian Alliance (grown from the Libertarian REFORM Party) AND the Progressive conservative Party……

      Today we are “The Conservative Party of Canada”, after 3 minorities, we finally have our MAJORITY Gov’t…and we can FINALLY get Canada OUT of the CLUTCHES of the Socialist LEFT!

      TEN YEARS!!!!! the Socialists RULED SUPREME while we FOUGHT EACH OTHER!

      PLease ALL Conservatives in the U.S. LEARN from our mistakes….DON’T DO THAT!

      Please search your hearts and do what is BEST for your COUNTRY!

      God Bless!

      • poljunkie

        I remember in 2008 Canada went Conservative!!! Steven Harper !!!

        • BlueGood

          Thanx was actually 2006, but as said above, we did not have a MAJORITY until May 2, 2011!

          • poljunkie

            Wow really? Time flys…I could have sworn it was 2008. Oh well. We were sooooo happy… none the less. Thats awesome, and what an exciting job …good for you…..Thank you for your hard work……Proud to know and associate with you here on the RScoop. Hopefully we will have a similar outcome this year.

          • PVG

            Thanks BG! As Levin and other have said repeatedly, this will take several elections to correct. But this is do or die time to be sure. Your comment strengthens my resolve!

      • Garym

        We need more anecdotal evidence like this!

      • So are you saying you had three different “Ron Paul parties” who kept voting their principles, so you all kept getting screwed? But once they all consolidated their votes (behind the Canadian GOP) they finally won? Because that seems A LOT like our current situation…

    • Lighten up, Francis. Ron Paul is retiring and Gary Johnson left the GOP.

      Mitt Romney and the RNC lied, cheated and stole to ensure Romney would be the GOP nominee. They even did it right out in the open on their national stage. I am a registered Republican, but I will not be voting for Romney.

    • You think they’ll vote for Romney?

  • Chevypowered

    I have several RP fans who told me they were sitting it out. For the first time in my life, I begged…you heard me; I begged for them to vote for Romney. Like others had said Romney was not my 1st, 2nd or 3rd vote but dammit he’s better than Obama. Hell cold soup is better than Obama. This is not a time to be huffing and puffing its time to get together and vote Obama out. We can hash out Romney’s conservative cred later!

    • PVG

      Exactly right! This needs to go viral pronto!

    • freenca

      Me too chevy, I too have begged friends that agree with me/us to vote, but they seem to have blinders on and keep saying the “I don’t want to see anymore of it” mantra. How do we get across to them that an vote of present is a destroy the constitution vote? I’m running out of arguements on a few.!

    • famouswolf

      You betcha!

    • The thing most people don’t understand is that many of the Paulbots WILL NOT BE AFFECTED by a 2nd Obama term!!! They’ll just join the Welfare club…no big deal. It’s all us optimistic, hard-working, self-RISING people out there that get screwed, and the Paulbots don’t have a single one of those characteristics. Hell, most of them ARE LIBERALS!!! We never had their vote to begin with…they ONLY voted Republican in the primary because Ron Paul drew their vote. They are NOT Republicans, and will NOT vote for a Republican!!!

      • Chevypowered

        Very true, I know much about RP and his followers. At least (I think) I was able to get through to both my RP supporting friends. Personally they saw RP as a quicker path back to the Constitution but I warned them that road required them giving up things they truly believed in (God, Israel’s survival our military strength).

        Look before anyone jump on my case about voting freedoms, don’t. Everyone has a right to vote for who they want but there is also a need to come together. I was pissed that my choices did not win but I knew if I wanted to remove the threat from the White House I had to join forces with the winners. I understood the threat that our common foe is to this Republic.

        I would never vote 3rd party as a big F-U for my guy not winning hiding behind some believe that everyone is pure evil, but my guy is as pure as the driven snow.

        This unrealistic madness has to stop.

  • celestiallady

    Yup share it everywhere you can folks.

  • Joe

    Why isn’t Bill Whittle running for something?

    I would love to see him in a debate

    Does anyone know?

    • Orangeone

      Why isn’t he moderating Debate #3?

    • sybilll

      He is more of an educator than legislator, but he needs a MUCH larger audience. He needs a show like Dateline. He has insight on things other than politics that I find so imformative. That the public is being denied his wealth of knowledge is truly a shame.

  • Nukeman60

    Okay. I believe that if someone truly believes in the Gary Johnson/Libertarian view or the Ron Paul view and can articulate it with confidence, they certainly have the right to vote whichever way they want. I think they are wrong, but they have that Constitutional right.

    The ones I have a beef with are those 80+ million who sat on their couches in 2008 and complained that things didn’t work out to their liking. 69.5 million voted for Obama. 60 million voted for McCain. Only less than 2 million voted otherwise. If we can’t get any of those 80+ million off their duffs, then there is a problem with us as a nation.

    Show me one demographic (just one) that is voting more for Obama now than they did in 2008. NONE. Not one. Not even the Blacks. Even if Obama wins a certain demographic, he will get less than he did in ’08. How, then is he supposed to win this election?

    It’s the previously non-voting public that will make it a landslide. Without them, we will win, but only slightly. With everyone committed, it will indeed be a Tsunami that will send a message across the political landscape.

    • PVG

      “How, then is he supposed to win this election?” Voter fraud.

      • Nukeman60

        That’s what will make it close if the couch potatoes don’t vote. We need a large enough gap so that the fraudulent vote doesn’t affect it.

        • Truest statement I’ve heard regarding the actual election. We MUST make up for the voter-fraud slice of the pie, because the law states there is a certain level of vote-proximity before a recount or vote-challenge can be initiated…

    • conservative58

      I have always believed that if you don’t VOTE, then you can’t complain!

      Don’t blame me, I just voted for Romney!

      • poljunkie

        Good for you! woo hoo We are looking forward to Nov to vote!

      • Nukeman60

        That’s one down. 🙂

        • PVG

          2, I voted last week!

          • Galatiansch2vs20

            4 here voted Wednesday of this week- Romney/Ryan

      • CitizenVetUSA

        Mailed my Romney/Ryan yesterday. Waiting to vote was like waiting for Christmas morning as a child.

        Have several friends claiming to switch vote to Romney/Ryan this time as well.

        • Do you trust the Vote by Mail? I’m in California, and since I’m military they automatically enrolled me in the Electronic Voting system, but I don’t know if I should trust it. I think I’m just going to walk in…

      • wodiej

        I voted early on the first day allowed. Steady stream of people. Family members went a few days later and there was a line. I live in Indiana. I was relieved and hopeful. Mike Pence up for Governor and Richard Mourdock Tea Party conservative up for RINO Lugar’s senate seat. Glad Lugar is gone.

  • “This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” –Nixon, ’68

    Now, more than ever.

  • poljunkie

    Wow there are a few sites I visit daily that have some people that should see this.

    • Orangeone

      What other sites do you read?

      • poljunkie

        Hi Orangeone- RScoop is my favorite site, but I read a lot of stuff during the day. Anywhere from TheWallStreetJournal to Breitbart. I also like Ace of Spades, Weasel Zippers,Instapundit,and PajamaMedia. The main place that I have noticed the “holdouts” though are the Palin sites.

        • Orangeone

          Thanks.  I follow Breitbart frequently but not so much Ace of Spades and Weasel Zippers.  I’ll check them out!

          • poljunkie

            AOS has a lot of witty comments. I dont usually add anything there because Im not that funny. Like most of us here- they seem to have a core group that has been hanging out on the site for a long time.
            I also like the,and I read the financial times for a good overview of the economy. (no comments)

            • Orangeone

              OMGosh, I found someone else that likes the Financial Times!  Everytime I was in Schoeppel airport the first thing I did was grab the free Financial Times they were handing out and loved the pink newspaper. I would look at reading it online 🙂  Thank you for that link.

              • poljunkie

                Are you referring to the airport in Amsterdam? If so, that place was amazing.
                I like the FT because it is a reasonable overview of economics.

                • Orangeone

                  I am, it is and me too 🙂  It’s about the only thing about traveling that I miss…

                • poljunkie

                  We stopped there on our way to Africa-(We climbed Kilimanjaro in 07). One of the best airports ever!!! Most of them in the US are dirty grimy messes!

                • Orangeone

                  And shouldn’t the US take a lesson on airport security from them right after Israel?

                • poljunkie


  • rsox1

    I understand wanting to vote for someone based on principle, I do, but I also don’t agree with making the perfect the enemy of the good. Romney was not my first choice in the primary, but he’s far and away superior to Obama and the only alternative with a realistic shot at winning.

    Beyond that? I despise the Left. I want to see MSNBC hosts in tears Election Night. After all the garbage they’ve spewed at us over the years, from racial demagoguery to class warfare? Look at the campaign Obama is running. It’s completely devoid of substance, having devolved into nothing but assaults on Romney’s character and petty attacks. THAT doesn’t deserve victory, period.

    • SoLongSong

      Mitt Romney was not my first choice either. I was hoping that Rick Perry would be more than he was, or that Chris Christie would step in to save the day. I gnashed my teeth that now of all times in history, why wasn’t there someone more stellar running?

      Because I COMPLETELY believe that if we don’t win this election, the country will be fundamentally changed as Obama promised and the “GIMME”s will have more than 50% of the vote next time around, rather than the 47% or so they hold now.

      I “settled” for Mitt when it became clear that he would win the nomination. Now he’s won me. Mitt is the RIGHT MAN at the RIGHT TIME in history.

      It’s NOW OR NEVER.

      • rsox1

        I was a Rick Perry supporter initially, too, but it became clear that he just wasn’t up to a national campaign. Romney’s definitely grown on me…his success is commendable, and I believe him to be a very good and decent guy. My vote against Obama has easily become a proud vote for Romney.

        Of course, the Left-with their petty, childish attacks- has helped push me even further in his column, to the point where I’ve donated, traveled to rallies, and will even be volunteering on Election Day. Class division and racial demagoguery shouldn’t win.

        • PVG

          Make that 3 Perry supporters! We have traveled similar paths. I have donated and actually volunteered to travel to Nevada where the Romney team will pay for my hotel and meals to make calls. I would pay to help!
          To add to the importance of this election, 4-5 justices are approaching retirement!

          • poljunkie

            us too re Gov Perry.

    • wodiej

      My first choice was Gov. Sarah Palin, then Newt Gingrich. I got neither but I am not crying in my corn flakes over it. It is what it is and we could do much worse than Romney. He’s a great businessman, he’s got a good heart and loves America. I put my faith in God and just keep praying.

      Those who say they are voting on principle for Johnson or Paul-Rome wasn’t built in a day. We first have to get obama away from having any power in this country and go from there. And for either of these two candidates to even put themselves on the ballot for consideration is unconscionable.

  • anyonebutbarry2012

    writing in paul, johnson, palin, does nothing but guarantee a vote for barry.

    to important of a election to do that.

    unless of course you like what barry has done the last 3 years and you want some more of that.

    romney/ryan 2012

    • As someone once stated, ” I agree, however, my decision for voting is not based on math, or pragmatism for that matter, but rather on conviction. My writing in a candidate is clearly not in hopes they have an actual chance of winning, but rather to let the system know I was indeed in the ballot box, but I reject the choices given me. I’m done with the status quo, and if that means I never again cast a ballot for a candidate with a legitimate chance of winning, then so be it. I have absolutely no obligation to vote for someone opposed to my worldview, no matter how moralistic they might be, and no matter what promises they make to fix the economy.”

  • Watchman74

    That sums up my thoughts, not voting for the lesser of two evils is allowing the greater of two evils to prevail.

  • Vote for Romney is a vote to protect America from marxists. Any other vote is a vote for obamalenin!

    • famouswolf

      Or obameggadon.

  • Malkiel_kol_hakavod_la_el

    All Constitutionalists have one duty on November 6.2012 and that is to save this Republic… And the only way to complete that duty is Vote for Romney… Romney was not my choice for President either – but Romney is now my choice for the simple reason Barack Hussein Obama is not……..

  • white531

    You can be stupid, or you can be smart.

    There is not a single thing in Obama’s plan for our future, that is good for America.
    You sign on to this Idiot’s program for the future of America, you are signing onto the end of America.

  • rondo smith

    Waste of time trying to convince someone like RonPaulSupporter2, he thinks he is sticking to his principles. He is a phony person , he has no principles.

    • white531

      I would agree with your comment, with one caveat. He is not a phony person, and he does have his principles. You just don’t agree with them.

    • Orangeone

      I concur with white531 below. There are parts of Ron Paul’s platform that are reasonable, others are totally off-base. But the beauty of America’s voting system is that we can vote for candidates of our choice, and even write in if so desired. I had a nice blog communication with RPS2 and hope that he sees that the country needs to be put first and the best way to do that with the current candidates is to vote for Mitt Romney and will share that insight with fellow Paul supporters.

      • Kordane

        The only thing that was really “off base” was the foreign policy stuff. If he was like myself, then it wouldn’t have been a problem. Imagine a Ron Paul with a strong foreign policy that kicks jihadist butt.

        • Orangeone

          Foreign policy is kinda important with the islamic radicals running the earth.  And it wasn’t just a little off base, he sounded like a wacko that needed a padded cell.  I’ve posted before but it’s worth repeating.  I think Ron Paul would serve well to audit and oversee the Federal Reserve.

  • To RPS2: I have read all of the posts here and have been impressed with your ability to articulate your passion on principles. I, like you, have always loved Ron Paul but never saw him as Presidential. I can’t imagine the debates without Ron Paul’s common sense approach to government and always putting the other candidates on the hot seat. I sir, like you, believe that I am a person of very high principles and my principles are so strong that I would vote for a spotted ass goat before I would re-elect President Obama. But one thing is certain, I will vote on November 6th, 2012 for Gov. Romney.

  • moonchowsan

    To RonPaulSupporter2:

    On 10-19-2012 at 10:04 PM, you said:

    “Yes you’re right, I can’t hold Ron Paul’s feet to the fire either. And if he fails, then I would look to someone else the next time around.”

    The people who are going to vote for Romney said the same thing just like you: that they cannot hold Romney’s feet to the fire, but they will vote him out if he fails.

    Both camps of supporters have at least agreed on one thing: that we will have our chance to fire the President if he does not do a good job.

    Beyond this agreement, I noticed that Ron Paul supporters always take pride and pleasure of his political philosophy, theory, and practice extremely literally (which, by the way, he richly deserved, looking at his life-long record), but Dr. Paul’s supporters need to realize that this 2012 election is unlike any other elections in living memory. Because of many reasons, which I do not need to go into detail at this time since almost everyone who closely watch of these things know, we now have a jihadi communist as a CiC. I am calling a spade a spade, so anyone who does not like the fact that I call the CiC a committed jihadi communist who is doing the things he is doing deliberately strictly according to his ideology, we can open up a new thread to talk about it. I reject the argument that he does not know what he is doing, and he is a failed ignoramus in the affairs of domestic and global geopolitics. People who have those ideas need to reread the Communist Manifesto, the works of Antonio Gramsci, Leon Trotsky, the Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society, the Left, the New Left, the Sharia and its submitting jihadis, etc and then decide what they think about the CiC after the refresher course.

    My point is this: while we can argue among ourselves who will vote for Romney (heterogeneously minded voters with doubt, no doubt), Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson until the cows come home for the next 18 days, our primary aim at this point is to get rid of the jihadi communist first. If we quarrel among ourselves whose candidate is better (Romney, Paul, Johnson), the communists are going to rule us in ways that none of you will have the guts to foresee even in your wildest nightmares. If you know anyone who fled their countries and came to the U.S. because of communism, socialism, or sharia, talk to them at length and in detail first, before making your final decision who to vote for on Nov. 6th next month.

    In this election, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have no chance to become the CiC. Their supporters are not going to like this. Just like an old saying: the medicine will not work if it is not bitter (whether that claim is true or not is for another day). If you look at the imperfect affairs of the world and our nation, realistically and pragmatically speaking, there is only two candidates one of which will become our CiC: either Romney or Obama. Idealistically speaking, Ron Paul and Gary John are the candidates. But we are living in interesting times, and such times need to have compromise among warring factions and vote for the most viable candidate which is Romney and get rid of the communist.

    Supporters of all three candidates (Romney, Paul, Johnson) agree that they cannot hold their candidates’ feet to the fire. But they will have ample time to get rid of their CiC if he does not do a good job. But if the communist becomes a 8 year CiC, you can kiss your idealism goodbye forever. You will never have a chance to get rid of a communist from power. I do not want you to believe what I am saying; just ask your friendly neighbor who fled communism. Perfectibility of Man and Society is an idealistic political philosophy which gave rise to communism and all totalitarian governing bodies across the globe and murdered more than 100 millions people in their wake.

    As Cassius said “Now, in the names of all the gods at once” we should come together and compromise to come up with an agreement to vote for Romney on Nov. 6th., with all the flaws that this man carries, which, I think is better than a communist in total unchecked power.

    If we are not careful this time, the Bard has this for all of us:

    Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
    Like a Colossus, and we petty men
    Walk under his huge legs and peep about
    To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
    Men at some time are masters of their fates:
    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

    • colliemum

      Outstanding post, moonchowsan!

      Let me just add this question all the principled idealists need to ask themselves:
      Do you want to keep working for your ideals, so that your ideal candidate can win an election?
      If you answer yes, then a look into the history books should teach you what happened when principled idealists thought they had time to control the evil of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. It took ten years for Stalin to get his power, and he consolidated this in the couple of years before Lenin died, turning the screws after his death. I think you know where the principled idealists ended up, and how.

      Is that what you want for your country? Do you really think commies have turned into fluffy angels and things won’t be so bad?
      Worse – with what is happening in the Obama administration right now, four more years means four years closer to a caliphate.
      Sharia Law run by commies – yeah, but Romney is ‘evil’ ….

    • Orangeone

      Fantastic post! I would also like to say I’m disappointed with Gary Johnson for not withdrawing and putting his support behind Mitt Romney to save this country and with Ron Paul for not formally endorsing Romney either. It shows me it is ego with both of them as it is with Barky Boy.

      • Those two are revolutionaries, who don’t go along with the system, normally. It wouldn’t matter who was in their place, the people voting for them would vote third party anyway.

  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    I treasure my right to vote and never miss a chance. There was rarely a time in a National election when I felt either of the choices was above average, let alone fantastic. Some proved better than I thought and some much worse. I view it as sad that the majority of “we the people” have zero impact on who the Dems or GOP jam down our throats. This time around there is no grey area. It is all about Obama and he must go down. I will never be convinced that Romney won anything. I may pull the lever but will certainly go wash my hands immediately, then feel relieved that I did my part to end the evil, no matter how distasteful it was. Romney may be a good man but the GOP is evil. Just not as bad as Obama.

    • Nukeman60

      Just remember, November 6th is not the end, either way. The work is just getting started should Romney win. He will not do everything we like and we need to push on for a new party to eliminate the progressives (both Dem and Rep) from our political scene.

      Of course, if the unlikely happens and Obama wins, then the work is right at hand, as I feel a revolution will result from 4 more years of his radical regime.

  • Rob_Bryant

    ha! Bill just espoused the EXACT same thing I was thinking tonight while I was at work.

    I have grown more comfortable with Romney as the months wear on. But as with every politician, I don’t think for a minute that they are Jesus incarnate.

    Okay, so I’m weird, but when I was thinking about this, I had a day dream that I called into the Mark Levin Show, while Romney was being, erm… unconservative, and the congress was being RINO. In the day dream, I was saying to Mark that we all need to migrate into a (T) party right away, while there was still enough time before the next election and we could make it known that the (R) party needed to be abandoned haha

    Lots of time to think when you’re cleaning terlets, I tell ya!

    • “Lots of time to think when you’re cleaning terlets, I tell ya!” LOL!!!

      PERFECT!!!!!! Under a 2nd Obama term, we’ll ALL be cleaning “terlets”…there just won’t be any other jobs…

  • RobertGman

    I truly believe that if Obama is reelected that we will lose our country and our Republic. Our times show a startling resemblance to Germany when Hitler took power. They were deep in debt, had very high unemployment, they were printing money like crazy, and they were looking for a “savior” to save their country. Hitler was a dynamic speaker and ran on hope. Because of the fractured Parliament, they gave their legislative powers to Hitler, and all power came under one office. To raise money to pay their debts he began to redistribute the wealth, taking it from one class (Jews) and giving it to another (Aryans).

    I fear Obama is not one to relinquish power easily. If he is granted a second term, he could use “executive powers” to bring all lawmaking under one office citing a fractured Congress. He could use this power to extend his term to a third, fourth, and so on. This is especially true since he has no plans to reduce the deficit and we are printing money like crazy. When this fails it will cause a widespread panic and he will view himself as America’s “savior”. But, much like Hitler, Obama is a self-described redistributionist and agrees with the occupy movement. It’s foundation is to take from the rich by force what they have not earned. We can see where this can take us.

    There are many correlations that can be seen from history, and history DOES repeat itself. Give the man four more years by voting for someone other than Romney and I truly fear we won’t get the chance to make the same mistake – our choices will be made for us.

    • Nukeman60

      Very well stated. Now watch the hard liberals scream, “He called Obama Hitler. He called Obama Hitler. Bigot, bigot” without ever weighing the truthfulness of your words. Happens every time and they just miss the point. 🙁

  • wodiej

    Excellent. Thank you Mr. Whittle.

  • colliemum

    From this side of the Big Pond, the question is crystal clear:
    do people want to go down the way of giving up on their constitutional rights, on giving up on freedom for the sake of ‘free’ food stamps and Obama phones – or do they want to get a breathing space where their constitutional rights are no longer under threat and they can see to it that their representatives do what they’ve been elected to do?

    I think there is no choice, and regardless of principles, the defense of your Constitution, one of the outstanding documents in human history, has to come first and foremost.

    Once your rights are gone, taken away little slice by little slice in Obama’s next four years, will it really be possible to get them back? Or mightn’t there be the quite real possibility of having to ‘elect’ Michelle for the next eight years, after which time elections could well have been abolished, for the greater good, naturally?

    This election is not just between two politicians – this election is for the defense of your country, your Constitution, your freedom, your and that of your children and grandchildren.

    That’s all.

    • How do we know it will be a “breathing space where [our] constitutional rights are no longer under threat” if Romney is elected? Our constitutional rights were certainly under threat the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress…the “Patriot” Act and Military Commissions Act were both enacted, for example.

      As far as “a vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is ensuring the election of Barack Obama”…not necessarily. I will be voting for Johnson, but I live in deep blue Maryland, where Obama will win handily.

      • wodiej

        There is no guarantee under Romney but it’s a certainty under obama as he has already done it.

        • Nukeman60

          To a Libertarian, evidently, there is no distinction between a slim possibility (if you stretch the meaning and squint your eyes) and a certainty (due to past performances and proclamations).

      • Nukeman60

        I live in Illinois, where the Chicago Dems have ruled forever. That does not stop me from trying to get people in Ohio or Florida to vote Republican (it also does not keep me away from the polls). If you influence someone from a swing state to vote Libertarian in a year that you know they won’t win, then you have effectively helped the Obama vote.

        Besides, there’s nothing to say your state will always be Democrat. Perhaps Maryland has always gone Democrat because too many people in your state vote Libertarian or stay home, stealing the vote from the Republicans. I know, not likely, but that’s where it starts.

        I have hopes that the slim chance of Illinois going Republican still exists (unlikely, but just wait and see).

        • The last Republican presidential candidate to win Maryland was Ronald Reagan in 1984. As crappy as Obama is, Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan in his re-election campaign against Walter Mondale. Not even close. I see lots of Romney signs around Maryland, even here in ultralib Montgomery County, but I am under no delusion that Romney will win Maryland.

          You are unaware of how many 2008 Obama voters I have converted to Ron Paul/Gary Johnson. I have personally convinced many people who voted for Obama in 2008 to NOT vote for him this time. I own a small business here in Montgomery County, and I have the opportunity to speak to people every single day. I have many customers who are hardcore libs, but they have stated point blank that they would have been willing to vote for Ron Paul over Obama this time.

          RP would have crushed Obama, but the RNC and Romney campaign cheated, lied and stole with the help of the complicit media to make sure RP wouldn’t get anywhere near the nomination. That’s done now, but I will not forget.

          Good luck in Illinois…that would be pretty sweet to see Obama lose his home state.

          • Nukeman60

            Can’t say I agree with your last statement about Ron Paul, but I will give you kudos for switching over many Obama supporters. Perhaps you can get Paul to win Maryland someday. I know, it’s dreaming, but what are dreams meant for anyway?

            • Ron Paul is retiring, and I do not see him running again as he will be 80 years old. Doug Wead thinks he would be the one guy to challenge a sitting Romney in 2016 should Romney not follow through on his rhetoric.

              If Obama wins, Rand Paul will run in 2016.

              • RosiesSeeingRed

                And he’ll never make it through the primary. If you think people on the right will reward the libertarian party for giving us Obama again, you are really delusional.

                • Your post makes no sense.

                  If Romney wins in 2012, and Ron Paul challenges him as the incumbent in 2016, Obama obviously would not have been reelected.

                  If Obama wins in 2012 and Rand Paul runs in 2016, you can hardly blame Rand Paul for Obama’s reelection in 2012 given Rand endorsed and campaigned for Romney.

              • He’d hardly be the only guy to challenge Romney if he sells out just because he didn’t endorse him to stop Obama, especially at 80 years old and out of Congress. Remember the old hatchets that were buried? If Romney disappoints, you could see Palin possibly running in 2016, maybe Rand. Maybe even Santorum as there were much tensions between them, but I think he may wait for after the second term to keep his capital as the runner-up.
                Unlike the left, we aren’t in lockstep and no, we didn’t all support Bush. Even the left had a kerfuffle in 1980. But if Mitt doesn’t perform as he says, I predict a primary.

          • With the help of the complicit media? The same media that hates Romney, accuses him of everything in the book and are in the tank for Obama?

      • I’m in the same boat in Oregon.

  • Kordane

    How about all Republicans vote for Gary Johnson, and that’ll satisfy everyone. Why do we always have to put up with this choice between the latest statist-lite that the Republicans have nominated as their craptastic candidate, and a Libertarian candidate who we KNOW will restore limited government? Why don’t ALL of you Republicans just head over to the Libertarian party, and we actually restore the kind of government that the founding fathers envisioned? Why must we put up with election after election between the latest Democrat statist and the latest Republican statist-lite? I don’t friggin like statism, OK! The lesser of two evils? Well hey, at least you’re admitting that Romney IS evil (to some extent). Look, forget the lesser of two evils – What you should be thinking about is what candidate can you vote for that is only GOOD. That candidate is Gary Johnson. You Republicans pride yourselves on being ‘moral’, but then you vote for evil. How the frig does that make sense? Vote for GOOD for a change.

    If all of you Republicans voted Libertarian then this whole war between statism and liberty in America would be OVER. If all you Republicans vote Republican, then that war will simply continue and continue… until the most consistent of the two statists will win. You think Romney will restore limited government? You’re nuts. He’s simply a “stay of execution”, and you know it.

    • SoLongSong

      “You Republicans….” Say no more!

      Seems you Lib(ertarian)s are under the same impression as the also delusional Libs: If we just leave, they’ll be nice to us.

      Obama did the closest to leaving in Libya as he could without actually leaving, “Kumbaya, nothing to see here. We don’t even have guns! We don’t need ’em! Islam’s great! We love you too….what’s that? WHO’S dead? Oh, no’s!”


      • Nukeman60

        Obama did worse than just leave Libya. Right after we get Gaddafi (Gadaffi, Ghadafi, Gadhafi, who knows) turning from a terrorist to a controlled yes-man (due to his fear that we would do to him what we did to Egypt), Obama gets a subversive counter-revolution to overthrow and kill him.

        Boy, that really worked out well, didn’t it.

        • SoLongSong

          Now THERE’S a “Lesser of Two Evils”! But as bad as Gaddafi was….You’re right, that worked out “well”.

          On top of that, nobody fears us anymore. Peace Through Strength. I’m a firm believer!

      • Kordane

        I don’t know what you’re on about. I’ve advocated nuking the major Islamic states to dust/rubble, in order to force their global surrender and global renounciation of Islam, yet there you are telling me that I believe some BS about “if we just leave, they’ll be nice to us”. WTF? I’ve never said that crap. Your strawman is my antithesis.

        • SoLongSong

          Oy, vey.

        • You can’t possibly be libertarian if you advocate “nuking the major Islamic states to dust/rubble in order to force their global surrender” as libertarianism does not advocate the use of force against others to force them to do anything. Your advocation is antithetical to libertarian thought.

          • Kordane

            No, Libertarianism does not advocate the use of force against others, but it DOES advocate the use of retaliatory force against anyone who initiates it, ie. Self-defence.

            The ideology of Islam and its followers (Muslims) have initiated force against all unbelievers for the past 1400 years, and their ideology sanctions and mandates warfare against unbelievers – Therefore, it is valid to retaliate against that ideology until it is destroyed and hence no longer poses a threat to our lives. This can be accomplished with wide-scale nuclear bombardment against the major Islamic states, among other initiatives.

            • Then I imagine you would start by nuking Indonesia, the single-most Muslim populated country on the planet?

              • Kordane

                No, I’d go for the strongest ones first, and then work my way down the list until all have surrendered and renounced Islam. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are three that I’d consider the strongest. And yes, I’d make sure to send in troops to disable Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal before it got a chance to use it.

        • But yet your candidate for President (Paul) DOES believe that…

    • Nukeman60

      I find it humorous that the Libertarian argument is ‘the lesser of two evils’ between Obama and Romney. If we decide, for the sake of argument, to talk about that prospect (to show you how much worse Obama is) then, all of a sudden, we are the ones who believe it is the lesser of two evils option. Therefore, you proved your point that it is evil, no matter what. Your circular reasoning is absolutely amazing (blind, but amazing).

      Also, it’s interesting that you claim we, as Republicans, supposedly don’t know what Romney will do in office, but you, as Libertarians, know for a fact what Johnson will do. It’s again amazing how prophetic (or is that pathetic?) you are as a group.

      If you think it is more plausible for 49% of the voters to switch over to what 2% of the voters want, than it is for that 2% to switch over to the 49%, then you have some serious reality problems.

      Either Obama will get elected or Romney will get elected in 2012. There is no other possibility. I personally believe it will be Romney (with or without your vote), in which case you win right along with the rest of us. If, by some chance (possibly due to enough of you voting Libertarian or staying home) Obama wins, then you lose right along with the rest of us.

      Simple as that. No circle, no bloviating, just fact.

      • SoLongSong

        Extremely Well Put.

      • Kordane

        “The lesser of two evils” was the argument put forth by Bill Whittle. I just pointed out that it is a concession that Romney is “evil” (to some extent), rather than simply “good”.

        Yes, we know that Johnson will do the right thing in office (ie. restore limited government) because a) Libertarians are FAR more consistentlu pro-liberty than Republicans and b) Gary Johnson has an AMAZING record of fighting for limited government (take a look at his record). So yes, we KNOW what he will do.

        Romney, on the other hand a) Is neither consistently statist nor consistently pro-liberty; he is an advocate for the mixed economy where there is some statism and some liberty, b) In the debates and in what he says he wants to do in office, he has shown himself to advocate some really statist things and c) His record is one of a statist-lite.

        I hear people say that Romney was just statist because he was in a “blue state”, but even though he’s not in a blue state in this election, he STILL advocates lots of really statist things. He didn’t go out on that debate stage and advocate the pro-liberty pro-limited government line that we should phase out the entitlement state (social security, medicare, medicaid) – No, instead he said he’d save them for future generations, like a friggin statist would do! How the HELL is “saving” the entitlement state a pro-liberty and pro-limited government policy??? It isn’t. It’s friggin statist statist statist statist! >_<

        I disagree with you on those percentages, and quite frankly I don't give a sod that there are far more Republicans than Libertarians and that therefore we should have to settle with statist-wannabes like Romney, rather than DO WHAT'S RIGHT and actually vote for the choice that is consistently pro-liberty and pro-limited government.

        I don’t care whether it’s “more plausible”. I care about what’s RIGHT. And I know, deep down, that Romney is NOT the right choice. It’s just another bloody stay of execution, and I know that we’ll be back to square one in another 4 years, and you’ll all be out, once again, telling Libertarians to do what’s WRONG, to violate their conscience, and back whatever craptastic piece of smeg you Republicans have nominated once again. NO MORE, I say. NO MORE.

        No, I don’t believe that this is a choice between Romney or Obama. This is and has ALWAYS been a choice between LIBERTY and TYRANNY. Romney does NOT stand for Liberty, but Gary Johnson has proven himself to. What you are essentially asking us all to do is vote between tyranny-lite and tyranny – Don’t you see how IMMORAL that is? Asking people to vote for tyranny, whether lite or strong, is immoral, since tyranny is immoral.

        And if this is an election between liberty and tyranny, then the ONLY candidate worth voting for, if you want liberty, is Gary Johnson. I WON’T vote for statism/tyranny, not lite, nor strong, and I morally condemn ALL those (Republicans) who want to perpetuate this death spiral of voting for statism-lite or statism-strong. Enough is enough!

        You, Republicans, have had your time; you’ve failed to stand up for liberty. You’re weak and impotent, you compromise with evil/liberalism, and then you have the gall to tell people who advocate the good/liberty that they should join you…

        Hell no we won’t!

        • wodiej

          Johnson did not win the nomination and he wont’ win the election.

          • Kordane

            That’s the thing about Republicans – They prefer to do what’s expedient, rather than do what’s right.

            They know that Romney is a statist-lite. They know that he won’t restore limited government and fight consistently for liberty. They know all of this, but still vote for him, because it’s expedient to do so. I mean, just look at what he said, quote: “If you think it is more plausible for 49% of the voters to switch over to what 2% of the voters want” – Right there, I can see that corrupt little desire for “expediency” in his words.

            Do what’s right, NOT what’s most expedient.

            • SoLongSong

              How ’bout do what’s REALISTIC?

              Perhaps you’re going to live for hundreds of years in some kind of gauzy dreamworld, where everybody finally comes around to your way of thinking.

              As for me in MY house, I’m thinking we don’t four more years to give to the catastrophe that is Obama – which is pretty much what you’re advocating in the meantime.

              • Kordane

                Don’t you mean “what’s most expedient, rather than what’s right”?

                Yes, I think that’s what you meant.

                Look, if every Republican switched their vote to the Libertarian candidate, then we’d have limited government, as the founders envisioned, within maybe 20 years or so, after we’d undone all the crap that both Democrats and Republicans have done.

                But, if every Libertarian switched their vote to the Republican candidate, then we’d still head towards statism, as we have done under Obama, except that we’d simply do it at a slower pace.

                I don’t think it’s realistic to fight for the cause of liberty by going towards statism at a slower pace than we have been doing. I think it’s realistic to fight for the cause of liberty by going towards liberty.

                • SoLongSong

                  Sadly, you are too far gone to even attempt to reason with. I shall have to save this country without you.

                • Kordane

                  You’re not saving the country. No Republican is. You’re all just perpetuating statism, but just perpetuating it slower than the Democrats would like to. None of you are truly fighting for the cause of Liberty, because none of you ever vote for a nominee who actually believes in Liberty and advocates policies that will restore it – You’re always voting for nominees who want ‘some statism’ and ‘some liberty’. It’s always compromises, half and half, and middle ground, with you people. Well unlike you, I don’t give an inch to the Left, no matter what the cost. If you give an inch to the Left, then they’ll take a mile, as they have done.

              • Kordane

                No, I’m advocating that all Republicans vote Libertarian, thus ending the death spiral of perpetuating statism by only offering voters the choice between statism-lite (Republicans) or statist-strong (Democrats). I’m advocating a fundamental game change of offering votersthe choice between liberty (Libertarians) and statism (Democrats). That’s a battle worth having; that’s a battle that can and should be won.

                • Before this election, I’d never even HEARD of you loons. YOU trespassed in OUR party, stole OUR money, and all to get YOUR candidate in the news. You were rowdy during the debates, stole the polls, lied and slandered our candidates, all to get YOUR candidate nominated (who isn’t even a Republican, nor are any of you). YOU are the reason we DON’T have Newt, or Perry, or Bachmann, or Cain, etc. etc.

                  YOU ALL ARE THE REASON…do NOT blame us…YOU GUYS screwed with our primaries in every way imaginable, and RUINED this election for everybody. So now we’re simply trying to salvage what is clearly a desperate situation, and here you are (once again) trying to cram YOUR candidate down OUR throats. GO AWAY…

                • PhillyCon

                  Don’t forget too, that Ron Paul would attack Bachmann and Santorum with his ads, and never touch Romney. What do Paul supporters say about that alliance?

                • Kordane

                  “Your” money? Who the hell do you think you are to tell all those people who donated money to RP and Gary Johnson, that actually it wasn’t their money to give in the first place, because it actually had the Republican party’s name on it. You’re as despicable as the Left, if you think that you owned ANY of that money. I spit on the ground before you.

                • We donated OUR money to the GOP, and that money got distributed to the candidates. Seeing as how Ron Paul and Gary Johnson WERE NEVER Republicans (and knew from the beginning they’d be splitting off into their own parties), then YES, they stole OUR money!!!

                • Kordane

                  Those candidates were fully funded (if not more) by Libertarians (and others) who wanted to donate to them specifically. Ron Paul specifically gets a heck of a lot of money from his supporters. If I were a collectivist like you, then I’d have a right mind to accuse Republicans of taking money from Ron Paul instead.

                • Ron Paul was elected to Congress 12 times as a Republican.

                  Gary Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico twice as a Republican.

                  To say these men “were never Republicans” is false.

                • They were RINOs, as they have both said and illustrated…

                • Kordane

                  Lest we not forget Reagan’s famous line: “Libertarianism is the HEART AND SOUL of the Republican party”

            • tinker_thinker

              No, I don’t know that stuff, I’m looking forward to a booming economy starting in Nov.

            • Rshill7

              “Do what’s right, NOT what’s most expedient.” (Kordane)

              To which dock or post is your “right” boat or pony tethered to? Merry go-rounds have boats and ponies. Both spend much time confusing activity with accomplishment.

              • Kordane

                To the dock of Liberty. The same dock that the founding fathers were once docked at.

                • Rshill7

                  Oh, Liberty is it? The “Liberty” championed by atheistic (communist) countries, or Christian/Jewish countries?

                • Kordane

                  Atheism does not automatically mean Communism. I’m an Atheist, but I’m an Objectivist – I advocate the total opposite of Communism. How does your stupid equation take me into account? Answer: It doesn’t, because it’s BS that religious people spout around in order to make themselves believe that religion is necessary for liberty, when Objectivism is proof that it isn’t.

                • Rshill7

                  Objectivism isn’t proof of anything. Nothing.

                • Kordane

                  It’s proof that you don’t need to be religious to fight for the cause of liberty. If you don’t understand how, then do some research.

                • Rshill7

                  No, it isn’t proof of anything. It isn’t moored to anything either. Enjoy wandering in the wilderness. A lifetime of pirouettes in the desert. I’ve done my research. What I’m now doing is slapping you upside the head with it.

                  You purport to have rejected the deadly tyrannical meal served up by communists while using the same deadly major ingredient in your newly concocted banquet.

                  God is alive. It is Nietzsche that’s dead. So is Rand…along with with 100 hundred million or so others who tried to survive under atheistic regimes. Fools who couldn’t help placing themselves in the same fire over and over. Many more, helpless victims of it.

                  Your philosophy is gasoline and you fancy yourself a match. Here, I wrote a story about it:

                  Once upon a time. The end.

                • Kordane

                  No, I don’t think you have done your research. I think you’re lying about that. You make claims like how it isn’t moored to anything, but you say nothing about how its ethical system is “moored” to the metaphysics of objective reality and the epistemology of reason. That’s how you end up at an ethical system, you have a metaphysics and an epistemology, or in other words, you have a theory of existence and a theory of knowledge, and from that you can derive a moral code of right and wrong. It’s most definitely moored to those two concepts, and it doesn’t need to rely on unreliable concepts like the metaphysics of mysticism and the epistemology of faith, like religion’s ethics is “moored” to. In the battle of ideas, objective reality and reason beats mysticism and faith every time. Each time you cross the road, eat food, drink something, or do any other action that puts your life at risk, you are forced (by reality) to concede to the metaphysics of objective reality and the epistemology of reason. Try crossing roads “using faith”, try choosing foods “using faith” – You’ll soon die, you know! The only way to cross roads is to “use reason”, the only way to choose foods is to “use reason”, and you can only know that these things will do what they do because reality is objectively true; it doesn’t change at whim.

                  I see a lot of religious fanatics on this website. You talk a lot of hot air about god this god that, you even abandon all objectivity by proclaiming such totally unsubstantiated claims as “god is alive”, among other things. I mean, other religious folk might say “god might exist”, but not you, you say “god is alive”, which is a definitive statement. Ok boy, show me your god, right now, go on. PROVE IT if you think you have that proof. Give me one piece of empirical evidence for its existence. Make god appear in front of me, or something. Make god fill my fridge with fish and bread, or something. Just don’t sit there making BS claims without proof.

                • Rshill7

                  There ya go. Comfort yourself with that. Dumb gobbledygook beats nothing at all. But then, dumb gobbledygook IS nothing at all. Oh well.

                  Remember, if you ever lose anything of value, don’t forget to look everywhere else, and I mean everywhere else, except where it is.

                  Leave no stone unturned and no turn unstoned 🙂

                • Nukeman60

                  I unfortunately read his entire post and I have to say that, even though it was a jumble of nonsense, you have to admit that he at least used every letter on his keyboard.

                  No points for that? 🙂

            • Nukeman60

              It’s not more plausible simply because you don’t have a position they want to jump to – otherwise they would have done it already. But, I suppose you think that all 98% should jump over, because after all, none of us can see the beauty of your insight and we should all have just automatically become aware of your solution. Brilliant.

              I’ll watch for the massive switch here in the next two weeks. Is there a particular poll I should pay attention to?

              • Kordane

                No, I don’t think it’ll happen, but I do think it’s what should happen. I give more consideration to what ought to be, rather than what I expect will be. I know that a lot of Republicans are just like yourself – They think that “what’s expedient trumps what’s right”, and then they go and vote for Romney, rather than for Gary Johnson. Little do they realise that in the long run, that long run that their desire for expediency does not consider, that they have, by piecemeal, surrendered their country to statism.

                • Nukeman60

                  And voting for Johnson when you know he can’t win is not surrendering your country, by piecemeal or straight out, to statism.

                  Come on, you either believe in Unicorns (ie, Johnson will win) or you just like throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. You can’t have it both ways, even though you really, truly want to.

                • Kordane

                  I’m just making the point that if all Republicans voted Libertarian, then we’d restore limited government (as the founding fathers intended) within probably 20 years or so, whereas if all Libertarians voted Republican, then we still end up getting statism, just at a slower pace than the Democrats would like.

                  Each time that the Republican party gains power we just end up getting more statism, but just less of it than the Democrats implement. We don’t make progress towards limited government, despite all the rhetoric from Republicans claiming that this is their aim. Just look at Romney this time – He’s not out there saying that the entitlements should be phased out of existence – He’s out there saying that he wants to repair them so that they’ll be there for future generations. That’s not limited government; they’re statist policies which he is advocating be perpetuated ad infinitum.

                • Nukeman60

                  The real reason Social Security is going broke is because Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have stolen it to spend on their own projects and left an IOU in their wake. It was self-sustaining and eventually turning it into a system much like a 401k or an IRA (ie, privatizing it) will put it back into the hands of the people where it belonged in the first place.

                  Johnson can’t walk into the Presidency and, on day one, say Entitlements are gone, excess spending will stop today, the government will stop printing money, taxes will end today, troops will come home today from every place in the world. If he is in favor of all that, then the government collapses and that’s not the smaller government anyone is looking for. Not only does the government collapse, but the world ends up in a world war III in short order.

                  I’m not going for any of that. We have to have reasonable change.

                • Kordane

                  There is no way you can claim that social security was intended to become “like a 401k or an IRA” thus “privatizing it” – It was always intended to be a government centric pension scheme. Now, that’s not saying that Republicans couldn’t have tried to privatize it at some point – but the intention was to keep it under the firm grasp of government. Social security, just like medicare and medicaid (and other statist crap) should never have been allowed in the first place since it is NOT the role of government to provide such things, especially not to force people to fund them against their will.

                  As for your comment on what Johnson would do, it is one massive strawman that you’ve created right there, because Johnson never said he could/would restore limited government on day one. I myself predicted that it would take around 20 years of successive Libertarian governance to simply unwind and undo all the crap that statists (both Republican and Democrat) have done over the centuries.

                  No, entitlements wouldn’t be gone on day one, but Johnson would phase them out of existence by telling younger people “You won’t be getting these entitlements, so you’d better save up for retirement and your own healthcare now”. Excess spending wouldn’t stop on day one, but it would stop pretty quickly. The Fed could be stopped from printing money, but it would require abolishing the Fed, which would obviously take a great deal of time. Taxes wouldn’t end immediately, but they would be reduced alongside the abolition of much of the government spending. Troops would be withdrawn from the world over a period of years, along with the winding down of many operations that aren’t crucial for our national defence. Johnson would obviously have to consult military generals and admirals to ensure that national defence is kept strongest, whilst winding down all the “nation building” and wasteful crap that the army/navy get used for.

                  So yeah, it’s not like limited government can be restored on day one. Statism is a pretty widespread cancer over the nation, so it’s going to take a while to pull out all the roots. And you know, you just ‘know’ that the Left will fight (tooth and nail) against any restoration of limited government, so that will hinder such progress.

                • Nukeman60

                  Can you ever read something and understand it. You always, always twist what someone says and get confused by it. Is that just so you can argue? I never said SS was designed to be privatized. I said we are trying to privatize it. What I said was it was self-sustaining until Congress stole the money out of it. Try to read people’s comments before you respond to them. That is why it is so insane to discuss anything with you.

                  You were the one saying all those other things were bad by Dems and Reps and Johnson would change it. Make up your mind as to what you want to argue about, because it’s tough to know what you are going to say from one minute to the next. Is that the gameplan?

                  So now what? You are saying he needs 20 years to do what he needs to do? I guess on day one he would have to change term limits, then. If not, then he’s no different than any other candidate and it shows he just wants to be President (much like Obama) and has no plans to do anything. Makes sense. There is a reason why very few people back him.

            • famouswolf


        • Nukeman60

          “The lesser of two evils” was the argument put forth by Bill Whittle‘ – k

          Just as I stated in my previous post, which you fail to understand, he didn’t bring it up. He answered the “lesser of two evils” question, which was “proposed as a notion by others”. There’s a difference, which you can’t seem to distinquish.

          So yes, we KNOW what he [Johnson] will do‘ – k

          So he will do his Libertarian thing as President because 1) the Congress is mostly Libertarian and will go right along?, or 2) he will do it on his own, because of course, we don’t need the Congress?

          What a lot of people continually fail to realize is that a President has to work with his Congress, whether it be Bill Clinton going more moderate (which allowed him to get reelected) because his Congress turned Republican in his first term, or George Bush, who also had to go more moderate because his Congress turned Democrat in his last two years (which was the start of our country’s present demise, btw).

          We all know Obama’s agenda and, with no further reelection ahead of him (and with a radical, socialist belief), will not work with a Republican Congress to get anything done, much like Reid has done in the Senate (I suspect Obama will have to be impeached due to radical actions he takes in violation of the Constitution).

          With the Congress (both House and Senate) possibly being Republican (with many new and present Tea Party members), Romney will work with them to accomplish what must be done to 1) turn our economy around, and 2) get himself reelected. Whether he gets reelected or not will be determined by what he does in his 4 years. He knows that and also has no radical agenda (unless there is one that you are secretly aware of).

          Let’s face it, you are voting the way you are simply because of a strict, unbending radical belief of your own, which you deem righteous, and not because of what you realize will be accomplished in the next 4 years. Admitting the truth is the first step towards recovery.

          • Kordane

            Let’s face it, you are voting the way you are simply because of a strict, unbending radical belief of your own, which you deem righteous, and not because of what you realize will be accomplished in the next 4 years. Admitting the truth is the first step towards recovery.

            Yes, I am a purist for liberty, I am consistent, I do not compromise, I do not surrender even an inch of ground to the Left, I am righteous, and I don’t give a sod what you think is the most expedient thing to do – I do what is right, above ALL else, because I am a moral being, unlike yourself who makes deals with the devil.

            • Nukeman60

              Wow. One wonders why you even post here, if your position is so cemented in your brain and you don’t care one wit what us devil worshipers do (an interesting concept, btw, since you are against our religion and we are pretty much a group of religious people)?

              We are against abortion and you are for it, yet you claim we are immoral. We have strong Christian faiths while you do not, yet you claim we make deals with the devil.

              Per Rules for Radicals by Alinsky and The Little Blue Book by Lakoff, you have just run out of ideas and are now jumping into the Socialist/Marxist territory of demonizing, namecalling, and personal insults.

              Congratulations, Barry. We knew you would get there sooner or later.

            • Rshill7

              The devil? You are righteous? You don’t surrender an inch of ground to leftists? Sure you do, you hang your hat on the same atheist hook as they.

              Which atheistic country ever offered, or championed freedom/liberty?

              You live in a country that Christianity founded. If you are as you say, consistent, I would agree. Consistently confused. Rand would have done well to reject everything about the system she grew up in, including it’s atheism.

              She left that system for the USA, but retained the most devastating part of it. Atheism. You have no basis for right or wrong. You stand on the tower built by Western Civilization yet fancy yourself hovering in midair with no supporting foundation.

              Wile E. Coyote are ye. Beep, beep!

    • Rshill7

      “I don’t friggin like statism, OK! The lesser of two evils? Well hey, at least you’re admitting that Romney IS evil (to some extent). Look, forget the lesser of two evils – What you should be thinking about is what candidate can you vote for that is only GOOD. That candidate is Gary Johnson.” (Kordane)

      Good? Evil? By what frame of reference can you use these words? What’s the difference between the two and what makes that difference either measurable or definable?

      Your atheism and objectivism kicks it’s own ass daily…hourly. It piggybacks on religion, i.e., Judaism, Christianity (Western Civilization) pretending to have no need for it, and showing no deference, either to, or for it. It’s like walking away from a huge debt.

      It’s like a hitch-hiker who after being delivered to his destination, curses the deliverer.

      • Kordane

        Liberty good, tyranny bad. That’s how I measure the candidates. Do you really want me to lecture you on why liberty is good and tyranny bad?

        Listen, Objectivism owes nothing to religion, just like Edison owed nothing to all the inventors and thinkers who conceived of things that he would use in his own inventions. Really, you’re peddling the “you didn’t build that” line, by arguing that Objectivism ‘owes’ religion something. Don’t you realise that??

        • Rshill7

          No lecture from the peanut gallery please. You don’t even know where liberty came from.

          In this case yeah, Christianity built liberty, atheism built tyranny.

          Liberty? Atheism did not build that. Objectivism did not build it either. Atheism is to liberty, what a wrecking ball is to a condemned building. Atheism though, is the architect of tyranny.

          Take a glance at the twentieth century one time.

    • Because your Libertarian candidate was insane…case closed.

    • Orangeone

      Whatever blend of kool-aid you are drinking, I suggest you flush it down the nearest eco-friendly billionaire Gates-built toilet. There are many, many, many registered Democrats that are supporting Mitt Romney over tyranny.

      First and foremost, our borders need to be sealed, infiltrators interned and returned and the world put on notice that we will never be attacked again. Libertarians enjoy the freedoms that were and are still fought for by conservatives. If you are so very unhappy with our Constitutional Republic and do not believe in our Constitution, the border is fully open for you to leave.

      To my Scoop friends MiketheMarine, Army_Pilot1967, Wolfie, and GreenBeretWay, anything to add?

      • Landscaper

        Sure orangeone, Mexico is so great people are fleeing in droves. Gangs kill so many people there now it makes Compton after the “Rodney King” verdict look like little league. I don’t recall piles of human heads in a pile in LA.

        Maybe he/she might try there. But I advise everyone (us regulars) to ignore their comments. It’s a waste of time.

        • Orangeone

          And I shall take that great advice!  Thanks Landscaper.

        • kong1967

          There was a head found near the Hollywood sign. I don’t know if it was gang related, though.

    • kong1967

      I’ll tell you why you have to settle…’re in the minority. As a Republican, I get frustrated because we can’t elect anyone more conservative than McCain or Romney, but I’m not the only one voting. Many, many people vote down the middle, which is why the candidates move towards the middle at election time. Unfortunately, I believe the moderates outnumber conservatives.

    • Who are you implying you’ll think win? Because all the polls that matter now are saying that Romney will win.

  • wodiej

    The Perfect Candidate by Russ Vaughn

    “I just spoke with my thirty-something niece — a very intelligent young woman, an Army wife stationed in Alaska, and a mother of four — who has been pondering whether to vote for the libertarian candidate in the coming election because Mitt Romney just doesn’t meet all her needs. As I explained to her, Romney wasn’t my first choice, either. I was big on my former Texas governor until he blew it big-time in the Republican debates. So be it; your guy drops the ball, and you hand off to the next-strongest runner.
    My libertarian niece is a supporter of Ron Paul. I reminded her that Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul, are both registered Republicans and achieved their present offices as such. They selected the Republican Party because its principles most closely reflect those of libertarians, and because the Republican Party offers libertarians a seat at the table. Democrats, most assuredly, do not. I asked her if she believes that the bedrock principle of libertarian thought is limited government control over the individual, and she assured me that she does. Then, I asked her, that being so, which of the two leading presidential candidates offers libertarians the best opportunity to have a voice in the future of our country — a Democrat socialist hell-bent on federal control of virtually every aspect of our lives, or a Republican businessman and capitalist, with a growing Tea Party snapping at his heels, who seeks to curtail federal expansion? She conceded that it must be the Republicans.
    We ended the call with her agreeing that the best probability for libertarians would be a vote for Romney. I would hope that others out there who have a problem with voting for Romney because he just isn’t their perfect candidate would consider the hard truth that as conservatives and libertarians, we must face the reality that perfection isn’t ours to be had. But then, we must consider the alternative: Barack Obama, who was, in fact, back in 2008, considered the perfect candidate. And as the saying goes:
    “How’d that work out for you, America?”

    Read more:

    • Nukeman60

      Well said. I hope you convinced her, seeing as it was probably a long-distance call. My calls with my daughter-in-law that turn to politics usually ends with her telling me her batteries are low on her phone and she has to go (I suspect it’s a polite way to tell me she’s tired of hearing about it. Bless her heart). 🙂

      • wodiej

        fyi…that was an article by Russ Vaughn and it was his niece. I believe he convinced her though.

        • Nukeman60

          Ahhh, my bad. I didn’t read the link and apparently the prose was so well done that I lost myself in your words. 🙂

  • boats48

    If only we could get this aired hourly on the major networks! Very direct & to the point!

  • Landscaper

    If Obama gets reelected and inpart it was because conservatives stayed home in protest or voted write-ins for a third party like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, let me eat cake.

    I will ignore them at every turn, her on TRS, locally in business and social setting. They will be my political herpes.

    • Kordane

      There’s something worse than Obama getting elected – And that’s carrying on with this death spiral where Republicans vote for statist-lites and Democrats vote for actual statists, and so election after election after election, statism becomes stronger and stronger and stronger, until there is no more liberty left in this land, as much liberty has already been lost, owing to this death spiral.

      What needs to happen is that Republicans stop voting Republican.

      What needs to happen is that the Libertarian party becomes the second party (rather than the third), because all Republicans switch to the Libertarian party.

      Then and only then, can we have a true chance against statism in this land, because rather than it being statism-lite vs statism (as it has been for many decades), we’ll have a battle where it’s liberty vs statism, and only then can liberty actually be restored in this land.

      It is not in our interests to vote for statism-lite again and again and again. The Democrats know they’ll win, whether they’re elected or not, because statism will grow either way. It’s in our interests to vote for liberty again and again and again. Liberty vs Tyranny – It’s the only battle where the cause of Liberty ever stands a chance.

      • SoLongSong

        Good God, you are TRULY delusional. We’re a lot closer to this country becoming Marxist than that other thingy with the statism, whatever that is.

        Yep, I may sound ignorant (but at least I’m not delusional).

        • Kordane

          Yes, you are truly ignorant if you don’t know what statism is.

          The delusion is in the minds of those Republicans who think they’re fighting for the cause of liberty by voting for an endless conga-line of statist-lites, one after another after another…

          • SoLongSong


            (Translation: “Hello, pot? It’s me, kettle!”)

          • Nukeman60

            Delusional is living in your own little bubble, calling everyone else delusional who cries out to you, from outside that bubble, that there is more to it than your own little world.

            You have your beliefs, okay. People disagree with them, get it? That doesn’t make them all wrong and you always right. Only you make you always right and everybody else always wrong.

            PS, the record is broken, the record is broken, the record is broken….

      • tinker_thinker

        We have to get rid of obama first if you want any of that to happen…..

        • Kordane

          In four years time there’ll just be another Obama, and then another Obama after that, and so on and so on. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN OBAMA TO FIGHT.

          Don’t give me any crap about this time being special. The Democrats will always field statists. They’re just bolder now, because the end (tyranny) is coming nearer, and they can smell it; they crave it.

          In four years time i’ll be Obama mk 2, and once again the Republicans will field yet another statist-lite, and we’ll be back to square one of Republicans trying to guilt trip Libertarians into voting Republican.

          This death spiral must end.

          • colliemum

            Are you really saying that, because ‘there will always be Obamas’, it’s better to let him get elected again?
            Are you really thinking that ‘statism lite’ is so bad, it’s better to put up with full industrial strength statism now, as provided by four more years of Obama?

            Over here we call that attitude to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face …

            • Kordane

              I say you have to look at the bigger picture. This isn’t about one man. This is about defeating the ideology of statism – And we can’t do that until we end this death spiral of electing statist-lites against statists. We need to start electing real fighters for liberty, ie. Libertarians.

              I don’t want Obama elected, not do I want Romney elected. I want Gary Johnson elected. It isn’t me who’s harming the cause of liberty – It’s all you Republicans who refuse to vote Libertarian who are harming the cause of liberty.

          • wodiej

            RP supporters need to put down the pot pipes and join society. Reality is not always cupcakes and butterflies. But then God did not intend it to be. There will always be evil people and evil things in society. Smoking them away on a temporary high will not change it. Nothing will change it but prayer and belief in God.

            You damn Romney as evil when he is in fact, a good man and a good businessman, simply because you don’t agree w how gov’t is being run today in general. Look at how ordinary people have done extraordinary things by banding together as Tea Partiers, demanding more accountability from our public servants. Look at how much Gov. Sarah Palin has endured to promote this cause and supported constitutional conservatives for the Senate to help this country get back on track. 2010 showed great promise with many TP people being elected. Progress is being made. So either RP supporters are off on some obscure goal that does not align w American’s values and founding principles or you are severely misguided. In either case, your pot smoking has clouded your reality.

            • Kordane

              1. “Smoking them away on a temporary high will not change it. Nothing will change it but prayer and belief in God.

              How despicable that you denigrate Liberty-loving folks as all a bunch of “pot smokers”. I have never touched any such drugs in my entire life. How patronizing it is to say that to be a Liberty-lover you automatically have to be high on drugs.

              You think prayer and belief in unicorns will save you from statism? Give me a friggin break.

              2. “You damn Romney as evil when he is in fact, a good man and a good businessman, simply because you don’t agree w how gov’t is being run today in general

              He may be a good businessman, and he may be good in his life, but he is an advocate for statism-lite in his political views, and those statist political views are the evil in him.

              3. “Progress is being made. So either RP supporters are off on some obscure goal that does not align w American’s values and founding principles or you are severely misguided. In either case, your pot smoking has clouded your reality.

              Look, enough with that “pot smoking” crap. I don’t friggin touch the stuff, OK? Get that into your thick head already. I know you just want to insult liberty-loving folks with that crap, but keep it to yourself!

              As for the “progress is being made” line, well yes, I know some progress is being made, but it is not something that the Republican party endorses – Republicans have fought Tea Party people at every turn they can. They just don’t want what the Tea Party are serving. These Republicans are the people you are associating with and voting for.

              One thing I’ve noticed about the Tea Party is that they’re all for limiting government.. but don’t you ‘dare’ touch my medicare/social security/medicaid! ¬_¬ It’s not a consistent pro-liberty message. They too are advocates for the same kind of statism-lite that Romney is advocating. The only reason that the Tea Party is more liberty-leaning that the Republican party is because of the strong Libertarian and Objectivist influence within it.

              • wodiej

                I was not attempting to insult anyone. It’s a fact that RP supporters want pot legalized. It’s a fact that pot alters the mind. I was not talking about you specifically.

                As for the Tea Party, I think everyone should pay for the education of their own kids. Is that Independent enough for you? I know a lot of conservatives think taxpayers should fund public education but I don’t. A lot of conservatives also pay no income tax after doing their tax returns because they get deductions everyone doesn’t get. Is that Independent enough for you? You are right that many people who advocate for conservatism get plenty of freebies of their own. As for SS, medicare etc. I would not only prefer but be ecstatic to fund my own retirement and pay for my own medical insurance. Paul Ryan wants to give people that option. Rand Paul supports it too.

                So you are angry because you think I was putting all RP supporters in the pot smoking category. But then you put all Tea party and Republicans in a box saying they don’t want limited government.

                • Most RP supporters are for legalizing marijuana not because they want to smoke pot, but because they want the ridiculous failure that is the “war on drugs” to end. We tried prohibition and it did not work. Time to stop flooding our judicial and prison systems and enabling drug cartels.

                • RosiesSeeingRed

                  I’m totally with you and Kordane on the legalizing drugs argument. I’ve never smoked a joint or tried an illegal drug in my life, but the research I’ve done on this subject has me squarely with libertarians on this issue.

                • Kordane

                  wodiej, Libertarians don’t just want pot legalized, they want ALL drugs legalized, since government has NO right to ban them. Libertarians believe that people own their own lives – If they want to harm their bodies, then they should be free to do so.

                  Advocating drug legalization does NOT mean that all the advocates are DOING those drugs. It’s a matter of PRINCIPLE (pro-liberty), not personal desire to do drugs. Personally, I think people are friggin stupid to do drugs, but I don’t believe that the government should stop them from doing so if they really want to. Do you understand now??

                  Quote: “As for SS, medicare etc. I would not only prefer but be ecstatic to fund my own retirement and pay for my own medical insurance. Paul Ryan wants to give people that option. Rand Paul supports it too

                  Paul Ryan wants to give you some crumbs of liberty, rather than the whole cookie. The whole cookie would a plan to phase-out social security, medicare and medicaid within 20 or so years. Young people would have to get such things privately through the market after that. Paul Ryan isn’t offering you the free market, Paul Ryan is offering you socialized entitlements, but with a little more choice.

              • Your line about Social Security and Medicaid and the Tea Party was so taken out of some vicious DailyKos entry. We challenge both of the parties, advocate liberty, what’s good enough? >_>

            • I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and I’ve never smoked pot (or done any drug) in my life. Not once. Stop the name calling and generalization please.

              • wodiej

                It was not name calling-it was facts.

          • tinker_thinker

            No, obama is the only thing standing in your way.

            • Kordane

              You make the same mistake that all Republicans make – You assume that this is about a single MAN.

              The truth is that this is about an IDEOLOGY – The ideology of statism.

              Statism is what needs to be defeated, not just one solitary man.

              • tinker_thinker

                No, I don’t, as I pointed out before, you don’t think for me or any other republican. I see you putting all your hopes on one man(and not the right one) You are doing what you claim others are. Your iron is in the wrong fire.

      • Nukeman60

        You keep spewing that the ‘statists’ are getting stronger and stronger when, in fact, they are getting weaker and weaker. That is the fallacy of your entire argument. You have frozen the political scene in time and refuse to admit that we are slowly kicking the progressives out of office (on both sides of the aisle). Look at the video of what’s happening and not just the black and white photo of the past that you prefer to look at to make your point.

        Or, continue on with your same ‘ole, same ‘ole, ’cause it ain’t going anywhere in this election year or any other. It won’t make any difference.

        • He is correct. The state continues to become more powerful and liberty continues to be diminished, no matter which of the two major parties are in power.

        • Kordane

          The issue isn’t whether statists are growing stronger and stronger – The issue is about whether government is growing bigger and bigger, and statists are growing bolder and bolder. And as we all know, both can be answered with a big fat YES!

          • Nukeman60

            So you’re saying that you stopped watching what’s going on in the political arena in 2008 and nothing that’s happened since then or proposed to happen in the next couple of years means anything to your little bubble?

            I see now. That makes it all perfectly clear. What a waste this morning seems to have been, then.

        • Nk60,

          Granted, but Kordane may have a point here. Let’s project to 2016 which you claim we will be able to vote out Romney, via another party. First, it is obvious that unseating Romney will not happen via the GOP primary (the last president to lose the primary was who again?). So, Romney will run for re-election and the Dems will nominate someone similar to Obama if not equal to him.

          Are you going to argue the same arguments right now that a third party candidate is wrong but in 2016 will be okay, when the exact same scenarios are being played out? With Romney as pres. and the rules changed at the convention, there is a better chance of the Cubs winning the world series these next four years than Romney being unseated.

          You are hoping that those who will vote for Romney this time will join into an opposition party against the Rep. establishment. However, Freedom works and other groups do not seem to be eager to jump the good ship GOP just yet. They argue that they will just fight harder from within. It is like the conservatives in the PCUSA who claim that they will just keep fighting though that ship has already sunk and they should jump.

          I agree with you that conservatives need to jump off the GOP but this past primary has shown that we seem to be more interested in pragmatism than in principles, more interested in the wallet than convictions. We will be back here in 2016 fighting that we need to vote for Romney or else the Dem candidate will win.

          • Nukeman60

            The situation will be exactly the same in 2016 as it was in 2012 or 2008, if we do the same things as we did then. People wanted to split into a third party this summer. You can’t wait till 2016 to create a new party. You have to start on Nov 7th, 2012 for 2016.

            You need 4 strong years of establishing a ground game. Romney won the primaries because he was the only one with a national ground game. If a number of the other candidates had done that, instead of waiting till 2012 to run, then we would have a different candidate today.

            It takes work, a lot of work, and it ain’t easy. But waitng 4 years to try or crying they’re not going to vote really doesn’t get the job done.

            • I agree that it takes time, even then Nk60 it will be a tough road, not impossible. Are there high profile individuals willing to burn the political bridges to help establish such party? If so, they need to start doing that now when people are paying the most attention to politics, not after everyone has voter fatigue.

              It isn’t just time but elections as well to get the feet wet, to get the party recognition out there. Even with all the social media out there, no one is speaking about the Constitution party or even the Libertarian party (even less so than the Green Party in 2000). This third party that would take over the GOP needs to win some seats in 2014 and not just 2016. It cannot come to the big party without knowing how to dance first.

              Carpe Diem!

        • Kordane

          Quote: “we are slowly kicking the progressives out of office”

          Progressives have been kicked out of office in the past. So it’s just ‘noise’ right now to say that the Right is ‘winning’ against the Left. Yes, there is some good news, but there’s also always a lot of bad news. You can’t convince me that there has been any fundamental game change in the scenario I explained where Republicans elect statist-lites and Democrats elect statists, and so the race goes to statism every time around. Romney himself has shown his statist leanings, and I, unlike yourself, expect him to be more of a “compassionate conservative” who does statist crap like Bush did, rather than a principled conservative who fights consistently for the cause of liberty.

          Look, in the long run we are on that same side – The side of liberty – But the difference between myself and yourself is that you trust the Republicans to restore liberty, but I don’t. It’s a matter of trust, and mine has all but evaporated over the decades, thanks to successive Republican administrations that only ever grew government and diminished liberty.

          Nominate Rand Paul or Allen West, and then maybe I’ll have some hope restored in the Republican party – But until then, forget it.

          • Nukeman60

            Look, in the long run we are on that same side – The side of liberty‘ – k

            Well, we can’t be on the same side if I’m for Tyranny while you’re for Liberty. Plus, you can’t be on the same side as us immoral, devil deal-makers when you are righteous and pure in your beliefs. It just wouldn’t be true to your core. Or was that all just some more BS tossed around?

            You see, you get into so many long, drawn out arguments because you bounce all over the place with your points.

            Nominate Rand Paul or Allen West, and then maybe I’ll have some hope restored ‘ – k

            Now finally something substantial comes out of your keyboard. Keep your eyes and ears open for the future. Man, it sure took a long time. End of story, then.

            • Kordane

              On that first point you quoted, what I meant was that you at least desire liberty, as I do, but where we differ (And this is where all the deal with the devil stuff comes in) is in how we go about that, because I advocate a principled, consistent, totally righteous and pure approach to achieving that aim (By electing Libertarians into power), whereas you take the unprincipled, inconsistent, compromising, deal with the devil, middle ground, lean across the aisle approach…. which has done nothing but lead this country closer and closer towards statism, since one cannot beat statism by compromising in any part with it. Republicans aren’t consistent advocates for liberty; there are FAR too many statist-lites and statist ideas in the Republican party, and that is far too poisonous for me to ever want to drink from.

              But yes, Allen West and Rand Paul are the two exceptions. I’d support Ron Paul if it wasn’t for his terrible foreign policy knowledge and ideas.

  • wodiej

    2000 dead people got food stamps. Others got increased benefits because they were “pot smokers” who get the munchies. LOL…this might be why RP supporters won’t support Romney because Ron Paul supports legalization of pot.

    • SoLongSong

      OHYMYHECK, funny commentary on there about some guy’s dog.

      I swear, so much outrageousness abounds when it comes to the ineptitude of the government I cease to be amazed.

      • colliemum

        I loved the dog story!

        It’s in the comments, in case people are looking for it.

    • PhillyCon

      I think you are onto something here …

  • Built_It

    I donated $2000 to Ron Paul in 2008.

    I was also happy not to vote for McCain.

    I supported Ron Paul in the Primaries in 2011 and early 2012.

    Now understand this: Ron Paul Supported Mitt Romney.

    It wasn’t an accident that he attacked the fron-trunner candidate against Mitt in every debate.

    Ron Paul understands, as I do, that Mitt was the best Candidate we could have put forward to face BHO.

    Mitt is the guy with the cleanest record of exemplary success. He is a pragmatic problem solver. And while if I were dictator, I’d enact Ron Paul Policy right down the line (almost to a plank), that’s not where we live.

    We live in America and have very real financial problems. Growth is the only way out of it; and we are close to that point of no return.

    This is by far the most important election of my life time.

    And the ONLY rational choice this election is Mitt Romney.

    Everything else is petulance and ignorance.

    Moreover, it’s not enough to just vote for him. If you want America to stay that great shining city on a hill and continue the Great American Experiment, then get off your butt and make a few phone calls to your friends.

    Knock on the doors of just 10 neighbors: let them know the stakes.

    They have never been higher.

    This is 1936 or 1980.

    And the world can’t afford a WWIII to get us out of making the wrong choice this time.

    • Nukeman60

      You are proof that not all Ron Paul supporters are ‘loons’ or ‘bots”. That was very well thought out and concise.

    • poljunkie

      The way I view your post is that most of us, you had your favorite in the primary- and he didnt finish the nominee. But you’re voting for the nominee and helping out in anyway you can. He’s not perfect but he’s head and shoulders about the current guy.

      Thank you. I salute you.

  • There is no, logical, reason why Obama should be re-elected. With such a dismal record, I’m just surprised Obama is still polling as well as he is. He should be polling in the low 30s, yet he’s still hanging in there. But to give Obama another four years after the disaster that has been the past four years, is just foolish. And Americans are not foolish people. I think that, in the end, they’ll do the right thing and vote for Romney.

    • SoLongSong

      It’s not “logic” we’re worried about – speaking for myself, that is. It’s THEFT. Obama shall not go easily into this good night.

  • tinker_thinker

    These people seem to have their iron in the wrong fire!

  • Erc Seitz

    Mitt Romney is a good man. HE didn’t take a salary when he was Governor of Massachusetts thus giving up any pension. He didn’t take a salary when he straightened out the mess that WAS the Salt Lake City Olympics.

    Romney is a good man and should definitely be the next President. We don’t have time to for principles, we are dying as a nation and we need to stop the decline.

    Romney is the man to make that happen. Vote Romney / Ryan Nov. 6th.

    • PhillyCon

      I don’t you got the memo, Eric. It’s about not voting for evil. /

  • Landscaper

    I just pulled a tick off my ankle and flushed it down the toilet. I forgot to ask the little parasite if it was a Obama voter or a (third party) conservative. Either way, it served no purpose. It was stealing my life source; my blood and a possible source of infection.

    • wodiej

      lol…good one.

    • poljunkie

      Ha! That made me laugh!

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    There was a point in this campaign when I thought we would really need the libertarian vote, but I don’t think so anymore. The RP/GJ supporters think they’re holding everyone hostage with their principles, but really, they’re in their own little world, living in a bubble, convincing themselves their votes will make a difference in this election. Nonsense. Romney is doing great without them.

    • Nukeman60

      I agree. I also think that all Paul and/or Johnson voters, if they stand on their principles, should state what they voted come Nov 7th. I know the secret ballot is part and parcel to our Constitution and they have a right not to say, but if they truly believe what they say, and Obama wins because of them, then they should stand up and face the music.

      It’s really a mute point, though, because if Romney wins, they can say “we didn’t vote for him. We’re clean here” and if Obama wins they can say ‘We didn’t vote for him. We’re clean here”. Win-win for them, I guess.

      Of course, if Romney wins, and I firmly believe he will, then they can bask in the improvements of our economy right along with us, without ever having to do anything about it.

      • RosiesSeeingRed

        If Obama wins, and it’s close, then I don’t think it’s a win for RP supporters. I think they’ll be blamed. And all that work they’re doing to try to further their principles will be wasted. It will be held against them, and they will ruin any future chance of a libertarian running for president with an actual chance of winning.

        I happen to love Rand Paul and have a big libertarian streak in me. I think he is approaching it realistically and he and his dad have been building the groundwork for Rand’s future run (hence RP’s alliance with Mitt Romney, as well as Rand Paul’s), but if the libertarian party gets blamed for an Obama win in this election, Rand Paul will never stand a chance, and the libertarians will have set their cause back decades.

        • Are you going to blame the Libertarian Party or libertarian Republicans? They are two different things.

        • Nukeman60

          You make some very good points here. The Libertarians may well set themselves back, but I’m hoping it isn’t that close. I like Rand Paul, as well. I have relatives in Kentucky, near Fort Knox (my sister, who lives here in Illinois, has bought property down there as well to build on), and the people down there are all decent folks (a place I have considered moving to).

          There is a bit of Libertarian in all of us, unless you’re a RINO (which I equate with the Dems, anyway). We are trying to build a party that has our Conservative values and it takes baby steps along the way.

          We all want smaller government, lower taxes, a sound fiscal policy, and security for our country. I think the good parts of the Libertarian Party may well merge with the Tea Party, as well as the Conservative party, to come up with an acceptable place where we can all dwell happily.

          But, once again, it’s baby steps. If we attempt to leap out the 3rd floor window, instead of taking the stairs, simply because we want to be on the ground floor quickly, we all know where that’s going to land us and it does absolutely no good. Some people see that and work toward that end, while some don’t, or can’t, see it at all and decide to jump.

          We all have choices.

          • RosiesSeeingRed

            Very well said. I’m with you — it’s not going to be that close anyway, which brings me back to my original post. We can argue all day long with RP/GJ supporters, but why bother? Romney doesn’t need them, and their influence on this election is zero.

          • wodiej

            Rand Paul is campaigning for Romney. fyi….

            • Nukeman60

              Yes, I know. That’s great and probably hard for Ron Paul supporters to fathom.

              • It does cause a lot of discontent in the Ron Paul community.

                • Landscaper

                  At the RNC, Iowa cast several votes for Ron Paul in protest. But Nov. is for ALL the marbles.

                • Ron Paul ultimately won 21 out of 28 delegates from Iowa.

    • That was the narrative during the primary season, but if it is true, why would Whittle even bother making this video?

      • RosiesSeeingRed

        Because someone asked the question, and who knows when this was made — a week ago? So much has changed in a very short period of time. Romney doesn’t need your vote.

        • He could get my vote, but he still wouldn’t beat Obama where I live (Maryland). Too many brainwashed libtards here.

  • underconstantatack

    Did you see this vid of O’s camp taking a loan out with Bank of America for campaign?

  • Kordane

    When Romney ends up being the statist-lite that we all know he is, the government continues to grow as a result, and liberty continues to be diminished – Will all of you Republicans out there vote Libertarian the next time around, or will you just (drone like) end up voting for the next statist-lite, learning nothing from the last time and the time before that and the time before that?

    I think you’ll do the latter until you find that you’re living under complete tyranny and are no longer able to correct your error through the ballot box – Then there will be civil war, and many people will die.

    • marketcomp

      If this happens Kordane, I cnnot promise that I will vote libertarian but I can promise that I will not settle for a package candidate like a Chris Christy or a Jeb Bush and look for someone who has a Constitutional knowledge like Allen West, Sarah Palin, or Rick Santorum. We have a deep bench of candidates who are conservative and are not ashamed to admit that and we have more on the way.

      • RosiesSeeingRed

        The better strategy would be for RP supporters to get behind Mitt and keep building the groundwork for Rand to run in 2020. Rand is making great strides for the libertarian cause by being reasonable and less “kooky” if you will — he has a better libertarian presentation, and he isn’t spiting republicans but rather trying to work WITH them as he moves his cause forward. We will have a very good chance of our next republican president being someone with strong libertarian principles if we follow Rand’s lead.

        I don’t understand Ron Paul. He aligned himself with Mitt Romney during the primary and helped knock out every conservative candidate we had, and then when Mitt became the nominee, he stopped short of endorsing him. He comes across to me as extremely selfish and manipulative, the same qualities I despise in Obama.

        • PhillyCon

          Exactly, Rosie!

          Ron Paul enabled Romney’s candidacy by attacking all the other viable conservative alternatives at all points in the primary.

          That his supporters are ignoring this inconvienent truth is telling.

        • Landscaper

          Do as you with rosie, we are talking to brick walls here today. IGNORE the liberals and libertarians that stop in here and they will tire of a def ear and go POUT somewhere else.

  • wodiej

    The bottom line about Ron Paul is America is not buying what he’s selling. “Nuff said.

  • FutureOnePercent

    While I totally agree that a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson vote is a throw-away vote, I think that Republicans should do more to embrace Libertarians as part of their platform.

    In places like San Francisco, a Libertarian would be more palatable than an average Republican. In all the Democrat strongholds, maybe a new approach would be worth considering?

    • RosiesSeeingRed

      Yes, which is why I think the approach Rand is taking is the right one. He is working WITH republicans, not against them. He’s advancing libertarian principles in a palatable way. As Nukeman said in another comment, RP supporters would rather jump out the 3rd floor window than take the steps. It’s not a good strategy.

      • PJRodman

        Hopefully palatable isn’t Overton Window style of palatable. I voted for him, like him, but am very leery of him. Apples and trees being what they are and all…and…liberty without a moral people won’t work. The founders knew that.

    • Kordane

      I’d argue that a vote for a Republican (rather than Libertarian) candidate is the real throw-away vote, because when you vote Republican then you vote for statism-lite, rather than liberty. Any vote that is not for liberty is a throw-away vote.

      • FutureOnePercent

        That’s what primaries are for.

        You do the best you can every day, and right now, the best I can do is a vote for Romney.

      • sandman

        Who is it right now taking away more liberies than ever? democrats! thay want to control every aspect of your life, Republicans would just as soon leave you alone than a democrat would.

    • sandman

      I would bet you would see a republican cross over to meet the libertarian in ideas than a democrat!

  • The point here is that Paul (who is NOT a Republican) ran under the guise of BEING a Republican to take OUR money (that we donated FOR REPUBLICANS to use) to get his name out there. He STOLE money from OUR candidates’ campaigns to use for his own, IN ADDITION to using his own campaign donations (the point being he STOLE from OUR candidates of choice). He has been one giant fraud since the very beginning…and you really could not care less that he stole money from real Republicans in our own primary race…

  • They act like legalizing drugs ISN’T part of their “platform”…

    • Landscaper

      Bro, shut up and pass the Bong dude….

    • NCHokie02

      To be honest about it, I believe they just want the Federal government out of the drug business. Which I agree with. Do I think they should be legal in the separate states? No, but that is something that should be left up to the states and people respectively as the 10th Amendment says. The federal gov’t has not power over the drug industry. Now if some of the libertarians are too naive to believe that if the federal gov’t gets out of the drug business, then all drugs become legal then thats their fault. I believe the majority of states would keep all drugs illegal. Some would allow marijuana but thats about it.

      • Sounds good on paper, but it would NEVER play out this way in real life…

  • That made me giggle! LOL!

  • No, we’ll make sure you Paulbots never get a chance to interfere in our primaries again. That way we can finally get OUR candidate, rather than splitting our votes with yours and getting the GOP candidate. If you’re a Libertarian, then keep your Libertarian ass in the Libertarian party, and stay OUT of our party’s political selection process.

  • BHliberty

    My son recently became a small business owner and up until then he had always worked for large corp businesses. Now with all his responsibilities, his clear understanding of the tax structure for small business by virtue of paying huge sums of money to the government, and his knowledge of what is about to hit his business venture with heavy tax burdens (such as Obamacare) he has clearly voiced his outrage. In fact, he is pissed! (Can I say that?) He has little to no trust with any politician let alone the governments that be. He has also voiced his dismay with the choice of candidates before us and he feels that neither candidate will curb the burden of big government and has told me he wasn’t going to vote. I said, “What?”!

    We have gone round and round (we were texting all this too, ugh!) on the subject and ultimately I told him, look, if the current administration gets four more years and you succumb to heavier taxes and regulation, then don’t come complaining to me. I was that blunt. I literally told him that Mitt Romney was a far better candidate than what we have now and how important it was to vote in new, conservative-leaning candidates in the house and senate. It is that crucial.

    It’s interesting because he wants so badly to be left alone and be able to achieve whatever his God=given talents allow him. I told him I couldn’t agree more. But I said that America wasn’t conceived in a day and it will take time and several election cycles to turn this mess around and he must remain vigilant!

    He told me that in fact he will be voting come election day!

    On a side note: He voted Obama in 08! ( I was really pissed! ) Oh well, live and learn!

    • poljunkie

      I am not a fan of texting….. Recently, my 20something year old son told me that most his age dont listen to voicemails anymore. They just look to see who called, and either text them back- or call them.

      Definitely a generation gap thing.

      • Landscaper

        Earlier this year all four of ours were in the same room at the same time, rare. I told them: that “item” in their hand was a phone that has texting. If they want dear old dad, they better CALL me because mom will text you back. But I’ll put my foot in your butt if I get a text asking for $ : )

        • poljunkie


          We were on vacation earlier this year- outstanding beach, great pool. We couldnt believe how sooo many YOUNG couples were glued to their phones. We locked ours in the safe. At one point this couple was sitting near us at a poolside table and we wondered if they were TEXTING each other.

          • I HATE texting for that very reason…to impersonal.

        • BHliberty

          lol! Good for you landscaper!

      • BHliberty

        I know, I have to try and keep up! But it worked!

    • NCHokie02

      My sister voted for Obama in 08 because “he was black”. Her honest words. She now also says she was an idiot and is voting for Mitt Romney. Every time I give her crap about it she’s just smiles and says “I know I know….I stupid.”

  • i watched im still going to vote for Gary and Paul supporters do not like mitt

    • NCHokie02

      you know he’s not going to win right?

    • sandman

      You might as well vote for bho! that is what you are doing. Giving a “man that hates America, and will taint the Supreme Court for many yrs to come, over what?so you can feel good about voting for your guy? I would vote for him also, but he has NO chance, I would vote for any one or thing before I voted for bho! but it just so happens that Mitt Romney is very qualified for the office of POTUS, enough said.

  • Conniption Fitz

    I’m voting for Ryan, Romney just happens to be on the same ticket.

  • PJRodman

    How did liberty look at the Occupy events? Thanks, you can keep that.

  • Landscaper

    Sat. 10/20 9:30 pm CST: Fox News- Geraldo had Gary Johnson on his show. Johnson was boohooing not being on the national ticket. When asked if he was trying to be a “spoiler” to take votes away from either canidate, he replied he didn’t care because “the people” that being US have to know the views of the Libertarian Party. I could kick this guys a–s !

  • I’m fine with Gary Johnson as a person. He had a good line in the little time he had in the debates, has a good tax cutting record and while he’ll do really good for a 3rd party candidate I’m sure, he won’t threaten Romney’s election. Many of Paul’s people wouldn’t vote for us anyways, and the college kids Paul gets are way more likely to have been in Obama’s constituency so they could get more votes that would be Obama’s otherwise.
    Obviously I’m voting for Romney, Paulbots are actually right on drugs and the Patriot Act, but they’re unfortunately unhinged and have an obvious deeper, nastier vendetta against Romney than they do against Obama. And this is THE last chance to get America back before it’s gone because after another Obama term, America would never be the same. Obama hates America and won’t even have limited constraints of an election in a second term so we may not survive another term from him, Romney will have a conservative House and Senate to keep him in check if he goes astray as President. People at home were holding Bush’s feet to the fire by 2006, so the Tea Party’s not going to die but keep America alive.
    I’ve seen Paul trash almost every major person in the conservative movement as evil and the bots are worse, but I have yet to see him say something memorable and harsh against Obama except the Al-Awlaki killing. And that’s the guy in power, the man, the most big government President ever. His bots prefer sniping at the right who agree on smaller government 90% of the time.
    They say everyone’s a fiscal liberal but endorse the Occupy Marxist movement with it’s class warfare. He’ll negotiate with Achmadinejad and seems to think Clinton was impeached for adultery instead of perjury and used that in an attack ad. Ventura thinks ‘religion is for the weak-minded’ and we’re somehow better off now than four years ago.
    They talk about the media’s bias, I hate it too and of course it’s biased, but when they talk about it, well, they really hate Fox News. Their attacks on the ‘MSM’ are either Fox News the station with the most amounts of opposition to the tyrannical government, or generic CNN hosts. I don’t see a lot of wrath most of the time against the White House’s unholy Pravda at MSNBC. They like the explicitly Obama partisan Daily Show.
    They somehow claimed the media promoted the other candidates, but the one other candidate that didn’t get his wrath was Huntsman the Obama appointee who actually got the liberal media’s approval.

  • Why don’t you see this on the left so we can be even stevens? Why don’t vocal numbers of them refuse to vote for BHO and get behind the Green Party? There wasn’t a bitter feud/divide after they got upset with Nader for their loss that was noticeable.

  • LORD, let me say this the way I mean it. I’ve been wrestling with this dilema since it became obvious that Romney would be the Rebublican nominee. I understand the argument that not voting for him on conservative principles would be unpatriotic and would clearly cause the downfall of our nation. On the other hand, God’s Word says that men or Angels that bring a perverted Gospel are accursed. If a man’s Angel or Prophet says that JESUS and Satan are brothers, their gospel is perverted. “Let GOD be true, and every man a liar.” I will not vote for any of the presidential candidates for my conscience toward GOD, and will put my faith and trust in Him, come what may. “For GOD so love the world that He gave His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

    • sandman

      Robert H.: all of what you said has a lot of merit, but on the other hand, I believe would be playing right into the devils hand, you see the devil was Gods right hand man at one time, but he became to big for his own britches so the speak, so God banished him to what became known as Hell! and in doing so the devil has been working against good for ever! Can you in good conscience let bho have another 4yrs. to place extream lefties on the Supream Court! (roe v. wade would go on forever),can’t you see that one point? that in and of itself is bad enough for me. Please reconcider and think some more about the long term damage that 4 more yrs of bho would do, who would you trust with a member of your family? a “man” with no past, (unsealed records anyway) or a man that has been an open book, that has given so much more of his OWN $$$$ in all probablility than all the Presidents Cabinet! (I would believe that more than the other way), Mitt is a member of a Religion that is not so diff. than most Christians, and they ARE Christian, the man does not smoke (anything) drink alcohol, swear, (no one has ever heard him), and is a devoted husband and father of a beautiful family, and we know who his father’s father is (for sure) that has been stable and faithfull in their beliefs, and has nothing to hide, no sealed records, all his school records are there to see. Mitt has a love for this Country that bho will never have for any country, his “love” is in social ideas that have no place in America! and never will.

  • “This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” –Nixon, ’68

    Because it does.

  • PoliticalMaestro

    Excellent points. I am a conservative, anti progressive, anti big gov, anti GOP, anti RINO guy etc.

    But I learned my lesson with Ross Perot. I was disgusted in 80s after the Tianamen square protest, I watched as students who stood up to tanks were jailed, and then Bush senior (who I had supported) grants China most favored nation status, all in name of free trade. Great, so that guy in front of the tank can make a cheaper pair of sneakers for us at gunpoint now. Angrily, I voted for Perot “in protest.”

    What did my protest get me? A Clinton upset victory, higher taxes, and Clinton selling nuclear missile MERV technology to the Chinese, the Los Alamos fire nuke secrets to the Chinese, WACO, Ruby Ridge, blue dress impeachment disgrace on and on…

    Oh yeah, and 3000+ dead Americans when Clinton didn’t accept Bin Laden on a silver platter from a foreign ally who HAD HIM in custody. Why? Political optics. Benghazi anyone?

    Ron Paul and Johnson know all this. For them to not bow out and throw support to Romney now is dangerous arrogance for our republic. They had their chance and both ran in the primaries.

    We simply cannot survive an Obama victory from a “protest vote”… not going to go though all the Romney vs Obama differences, cause you know em all or can go to their websites. But consider just this one point… we have four, that’s FOUR Supreme Court justices approaching age 80 next year or two. That’s four appointments Obama can destroy us with. The word libertarian will be a distant pleasant memory if that happens folks. It’s your choice: Orwellian nightmare or at least a chance with Romney, who BTW does not like the FED or QE infinity either.

    • Chevypowered

      Yes and then some!

    • sandman

      You are not alone PoliticalM. my whole family has learned that very same lesson! and I hope there are enough of us out there to make a differnce this time around, this time the stakes are so much higher than ever before, this Great Country of ours can not take another 4 yrs of this P O S in the WH, him and all his fools running this Country like we cant see what is going on in his “transparent” administration?!!!!, there has never been a more secretive, partisan and untrustworthy admin. in the history of this Great Nation a Nation built on the Blood, sweat and tears of countless patriots throughout our history! we can not, and I believe will not, let this “Man” distroy what our Forefathers, with the guidence from God, has produced, to help more people, from more countries prosper and live in peace and Freedom.

  • good video ,bill is right if ob goes back in we are dume.

  • sandman

    The Biggest problem with finding the best person for the job, is the laim stream media! no one in their right mind would want to present themselves on a siver platter for the L S M to run rough shot over them! that is the problem today! the media is NOT unbiased any more or never has been!

  • Huss Family

    Great video. Couldn’t agree more.