This web site keeps attacking Mitt Romney. While
he is not perfect he is not a pathological liar and a
acknowledged Marxist.
How can an intelligent person think that Obama is
better? for USA? for world? The attacks on Romney
made herein fail the test of good reason.
Adhereing to a blind allegence to a economic political
idology that is a minority concept in this in this go around
fail to see that in order to suceed in future there has
to be a future.
How can a person who has been in military accept a
man in White House that refused to support American
diplomats and let them just die be the correct position?
How can supporting a person who would destroy the
political economic system that raised the whole world’s
standard of living be the correct way?
Hard questions need to be asked about the negative postings
about Romney, yes.
It must be clearly said that Romney is not Hitler, Lenis, Mao,
Pol Pot, et al!
> How can a person who has been in military accept a
man in White House that refused to support American
diplomats and let them just die be the correct position?
Have you read what I’ve written about Obama?
I think you see the world to Republican vs. Democrat glasses. We are taught from and early age that the political scale runs from left to right and that the two poles — Reps. and Dems. — represent more or less opposites.
In fact, BOTH Republicans and Democrats are one spec on the scale that runs from liberty to tyranny. They are both far toward the tyranny side.
One is a little more stupid, the other is a little more evil. One believes in Welfare then War, the other believes in War and then Welfare.
Despite the different cultures they may represent, there is no substantial difference whatsoever between Romney, Obama and Bush.
…
The president has stated in his campaign for re-election
that he underestimated the weakness of economic forces,
and he now knows that no one could have corrected
them in the past four years. Essentially, his best argument
is that he has consumed his first term learning what to
do to correct our economic woes, and he needs another
four years in office to put into effect what he has learned.
He wants to borrow more and spend more and transfer
more wealth.
What he fails to realize, of course, is that you cannot
correct a problem essentially created by too much
government borrowing and spending with more government
borrowing and spending. The president’s values are
Wilsonian: Personal freedom and private property can
be subordinated to the common good; the federal
government knows better than the free market how to
bring about prosperity; killing is such an effective tool of
foreign policy that the decision to kill cannot be vested in
a Congress that can’t produce a budget; and the
Constitution is merely a guideline to be consulted from
time to time. I am sure he believes that our rights come
from the government and not from our humanity.
…
Romney does understand that only private enterprise
can produce wealth, while the government merely
transfers or consumes it. I believe him when he argues
that the degree of federal involvement in the free
market distorts the market, gives certain parts of it a
false sense of stability and expectation, and ultimately
costs more than it helps. The cost is in tax dollars taken
from those who could otherwise employ those dollars
for investment, thus impeding prosperity and jobs. And
the cost is in government borrowing that is never repaid
but merely rolled over, and in the debt service that now
exceeds half a trillion dollars annually.
…
Now back to voting. Can one morally vote for the
lesser of two evils? In a word, no. A basic principle
of Judeo-Christian teaching and of the natural law to
which the country was married by the Declaration of
Independence is that one may not knowingly do evil
that good may come of it. So, what should a libertarian
do?
…
On the other hand, even a small step toward the
free market and away from the Obama years of
central economic planning would be at least a small
improvement for every American’s freedom. A journey
of a thousand miles begins with a single step. That is
Romney’s best argument.
———————– // ————————-
I appreciate that Romney is not a Libertarian nor
has he taken anti war stances. However, I also
contend that he has a record of honesty and
respect for human dignity.
As to the main stream media saying that he did
one thing 10 years ago and now says something
different therefore he is dishonest. I say that
circumstances change and he evolved differing
stances based on [1] facts available at the time
and [2] he has become more aware of fiscal
conservative views and Libertarian views.
Therefore it is reasonable that his remarks today
are not what they were when he was Governor
nor head of Bain Capital.
Did you understand Ron Paul’s thinking when you
graduated college? Has your economic reasoning
evolved?
I am privy to remarks made by Romney that you
do not find in the main stream media. These remarks
are not reported because the main stream media
is biased or paid for by Soros.
It is important to grasp, that Romney is trustworthy.
However, if you want to influence his thinking on war,
then it is Roman’s duty to provide good reason.
It is up to you to provide facts and good reason to
change his views. Understand that his opinions do
change when good reason to do is presented. It is
up to you to balance the aggressive views that you
so much oppose. God gave you the talents, now
put them to work.
You represent a different opinion. Develop the
persuasive skills to sell your opinion to Romney.
We grasp that you have the nascent abilities to do
so. These reasons must be positive contribution not
negative innuendo.
Again, there are differences between Romney and
Obama. Those small differences beg for your consideration.
And wait for coherent presentation of good reason
and facts for him to change.
> It is important to grasp, that Romney is trustworthy.
I respectfully disagree, sir. He has proven time and again to be a compulsive, opportunistic liar. I also disagree that there are any major differences between him and Obama.
I think the best thing one can do is to turn your back on these two monsters and keep your dignity. Don’t let them believe that you support any of what they do.
I can understand the impulse to vote, however. Good luck. I hope you achieve freedom.
Then again, if the Party of Regions wins again in
Ukraine, that will be interesting.
You have now assumed that Ukraine is your birth
rite. You walk away from a challenge.
Exactly where were you born and where did you
grow up?
I do not abandon my place here. Noting that my great
grandfather used shoe leather express to escape
‘Serfdom’.
You have believed too much that the main stream
media spews. It is a great disappointment that one
as able to use words walked away when a wordsmith
is needed.
This web site keeps attacking Mitt Romney. While
he is not perfect he is not a pathological liar and a
acknowledged Marxist.
How can an intelligent person think that Obama is
better? for USA? for world? The attacks on Romney
made herein fail the test of good reason.
Adhereing to a blind allegence to a economic political
idology that is a minority concept in this in this go around
fail to see that in order to suceed in future there has
to be a future.
How can a person who has been in military accept a
man in White House that refused to support American
diplomats and let them just die be the correct position?
How can supporting a person who would destroy the
political economic system that raised the whole world’s
standard of living be the correct way?
Hard questions need to be asked about the negative postings
about Romney, yes.
It must be clearly said that Romney is not Hitler, Lenis, Mao,
Pol Pot, et al!
> How can a person who has been in military accept a
man in White House that refused to support American
diplomats and let them just die be the correct position?
Have you read what I’ve written about Obama?
I think you see the world to Republican vs. Democrat glasses. We are taught from and early age that the political scale runs from left to right and that the two poles — Reps. and Dems. — represent more or less opposites.
In fact, BOTH Republicans and Democrats are one spec on the scale that runs from liberty to tyranny. They are both far toward the tyranny side.
One is a little more stupid, the other is a little more evil. One believes in Welfare then War, the other believes in War and then Welfare.
Despite the different cultures they may represent, there is no substantial difference whatsoever between Romney, Obama and Bush.
Appreciate that I have read your comments on
this forum and your other sites.
And I say that your posts against Romney are
more virulent against Romney than those against Obama.
Rather I look to the following Post from the Lew Rockwell site:
—————– // —————————-
Should You Vote for President?
by Andrew P. Napolitano
lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano74.1.html
…
The president has stated in his campaign for re-election
that he underestimated the weakness of economic forces,
and he now knows that no one could have corrected
them in the past four years. Essentially, his best argument
is that he has consumed his first term learning what to
do to correct our economic woes, and he needs another
four years in office to put into effect what he has learned.
He wants to borrow more and spend more and transfer
more wealth.
What he fails to realize, of course, is that you cannot
correct a problem essentially created by too much
government borrowing and spending with more government
borrowing and spending. The president’s values are
Wilsonian: Personal freedom and private property can
be subordinated to the common good; the federal
government knows better than the free market how to
bring about prosperity; killing is such an effective tool of
foreign policy that the decision to kill cannot be vested in
a Congress that can’t produce a budget; and the
Constitution is merely a guideline to be consulted from
time to time. I am sure he believes that our rights come
from the government and not from our humanity.
…
Romney does understand that only private enterprise
can produce wealth, while the government merely
transfers or consumes it. I believe him when he argues
that the degree of federal involvement in the free
market distorts the market, gives certain parts of it a
false sense of stability and expectation, and ultimately
costs more than it helps. The cost is in tax dollars taken
from those who could otherwise employ those dollars
for investment, thus impeding prosperity and jobs. And
the cost is in government borrowing that is never repaid
but merely rolled over, and in the debt service that now
exceeds half a trillion dollars annually.
…
Now back to voting. Can one morally vote for the
lesser of two evils? In a word, no. A basic principle
of Judeo-Christian teaching and of the natural law to
which the country was married by the Declaration of
Independence is that one may not knowingly do evil
that good may come of it. So, what should a libertarian
do?
…
On the other hand, even a small step toward the
free market and away from the Obama years of
central economic planning would be at least a small
improvement for every American’s freedom. A journey
of a thousand miles begins with a single step. That is
Romney’s best argument.
———————– // ————————-
I appreciate that Romney is not a Libertarian nor
has he taken anti war stances. However, I also
contend that he has a record of honesty and
respect for human dignity.
As to the main stream media saying that he did
one thing 10 years ago and now says something
different therefore he is dishonest. I say that
circumstances change and he evolved differing
stances based on [1] facts available at the time
and [2] he has become more aware of fiscal
conservative views and Libertarian views.
Therefore it is reasonable that his remarks today
are not what they were when he was Governor
nor head of Bain Capital.
Did you understand Ron Paul’s thinking when you
graduated college? Has your economic reasoning
evolved?
I am privy to remarks made by Romney that you
do not find in the main stream media. These remarks
are not reported because the main stream media
is biased or paid for by Soros.
It is important to grasp, that Romney is trustworthy.
However, if you want to influence his thinking on war,
then it is Roman’s duty to provide good reason.
It is up to you to provide facts and good reason to
change his views. Understand that his opinions do
change when good reason to do is presented. It is
up to you to balance the aggressive views that you
so much oppose. God gave you the talents, now
put them to work.
You represent a different opinion. Develop the
persuasive skills to sell your opinion to Romney.
We grasp that you have the nascent abilities to do
so. These reasons must be positive contribution not
negative innuendo.
Again, there are differences between Romney and
Obama. Those small differences beg for your consideration.
And wait for coherent presentation of good reason
and facts for him to change.
—————– // ——————
> It is important to grasp, that Romney is trustworthy.
I respectfully disagree, sir. He has proven time and again to be a compulsive, opportunistic liar. I also disagree that there are any major differences between him and Obama.
I think the best thing one can do is to turn your back on these two monsters and keep your dignity. Don’t let them believe that you support any of what they do.
I can understand the impulse to vote, however. Good luck. I hope you achieve freedom.
It was said, ” I hope you achieve freedom.”
If Obama wins that will be interesting.
Then again, if the Party of Regions wins again in
Ukraine, that will be interesting.
You have now assumed that Ukraine is your birth
rite. You walk away from a challenge.
Exactly where were you born and where did you
grow up?
I do not abandon my place here. Noting that my great
grandfather used shoe leather express to escape
‘Serfdom’.
You have believed too much that the main stream
media spews. It is a great disappointment that one
as able to use words walked away when a wordsmith
is needed.