Romney is a Flat out Liar, a Fake, and a liberal.

[poncho]

That is the point Poncho, there is noone to actually support.

But anybody is better than Obama.

John

That's not quite true though. Ron Paul is worth supporting unless you support the killing and displacing of millions of brown skinned people in the name of "national security". If that be the case then just vote for any of the corporatist candidates they'll be more than happy to continue the slaughter.

 

[targus]

That's not quite true though. Ron Paul is worth supporting unless you support the killing and displacing of millions of brown skinned people in the name of "national security". If that be the case then just vote for any of the corporatist candidates they'll be more than happy to continue the slaughter.

"Killing and displacing of millions of brown skinned people"?

What does this mean?

If you mean illegal immigration, Obama claims to have deported more illegal aliens than any other President.

If you are talking about Iran and Afghanistan, Obama is the only candidate that has ordered the killing of anyone - including American citizens - in the name of national security.

 

[poncho]

"Killing and displacing of millions of brown skinned people"?

What does this mean?

If you mean illegal immigration, Obama claims to have deported more illegal aliens than any other President.

If you are talking about Iran and Afghanistan, Obama is the only candidate that has ordered the killing of anyone - including American citizens - in the name of national security.

That's not quite true either is it? If memory serves we've been killing and displacing not only brown skinned people but yellow skinned people long before Bush and Obama's heads were the size of grapes.

Since 1898 and red skinned people long before that even. Why? To protect the interests of rich men. You can claim otherwise but you'd just be kidding yourself. History tells the story. War is a racket.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The only thing you can do is decide whether you are voting for a candidate, or against a candidate.

If you are deadset on keeping Obama from a second term, then you are voting against him, and must determine which opposing candidate has the most electability.

If you are voting for a candidate, then you must vote your conscience, and the candidate who most represents you, even if that candidate has no chance of winning. Necessarily, you increase the odds of Obama being elected a second term.

As I see it, those are your only two choices. To vote the moral Christian vote, you cannot vote for any of the Republican candidates; and no independent has the ability to win over Obama. To vote against Obama, you have to choose the candidate that has the best chance to beat him; and currently, Romney is the only one that consistently pulls the numbers.

I don't know how I'm going to vote this election. But in what I readily admit is a defeatist attitude, I'm mentally preparing for an Obama second term.

Thank you.

 

[Havensdad]

Paul is a freak. He has really weird ideas about foreign policy.

John

Why do you think following the Constitution is "weird foreign policy"?

And no, he is not a freak. Plastic man Mitt Romney can certainly be called a freak, and Jabba the Hut look alike, "send em to the Moon" Gingrich can certainly be called a freak, but not Paul. He is just plain spoken and honest.

 

[Havensdad]

Thank you.

Except the actual data (you know, the facts), say that Paul has the best chance of beating Obama. He beats Romney and Obama BOTH, among independents, he rivals Obama among young people, and he has across the aisle appeal that none of the other GOP candidates possess.

The only ones that say that Romney has a better chance than Paul, are the establishment idiots who actually WANT Romney, to protect their power.

George Soros said the other day, that the only difference between Obama and Romney, is the crowd that follows them. I agree. No thank you. I am not going to vote for an Obama clone, just so "our team" wins. That is not only blasphemous idolatry, it works against us. If the establishment knows that we will support anyone they put forward, they will just keep putting forward these same guys: "Hey, do you like liberal #1, or liberal #2?"

The only way we are EVER going to turn things around, is to show them that we WILL NOT support their hand picked, liberal candidate. We want a REAL choice. Otherwise, we are in a never ending decline.

 

[carpro]

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/two-huge-romney-lies-at-cnn-debate-debunked/

From the article

#1 A fact check done on Romney care, shows that Romney lied. The Massachusetts court is not the one that put abortion into the bill. Romney intentionally included tax payer funded abortion in his Romney Care bill, 3 YEARS AFTER, his so called "Pro-life conversion."

#2 Regarding Gay Marriage:

"Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney alone, unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally authorized the alterations to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in Massachusetts in violation of at least 8 article of the oldest functioning constitution in the world, the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams."

Mitt Romney is NOT pro-life, and he is a liar and liberal to boot. Another thing he did? He paid 100K dollars to eradicate his record in Massachusetts, to keep people from scrutinizing what he did there... How on EARTH is that even legal??!!

OK Not surprised Romney is a liar.

Paul is a hypocrite.

Gingrich is a moral degenerate.

The only one I know of that has admitted his sin and asked God for forgiveness is the moral degenerate.

Oh, what to do. :BangHead:

 

[targus]

That's not quite true either is it? If memory serves we've been killing and displacing not only brown skinned people but yellow skinned people long before Bush and Obama's heads were the size of grapes.

Since 1898 and red skinned people long before that even. Why? To protect the interests of rich men. You can claim otherwise but you'd just be kidding yourself. History tells the story. War is a racket.

So which candidates support "killing and displacing millions of brown skinned people"?

Seriously, get a grip.

 

[saturneptune]

I dont like him much either, but if he can beat Obama then I will vote for him.

I would vote for Pee Wee Herman over Obama.

John

I would vote for Pee Wee Herman over Obama. I would vote for a third party in a Obama Romney race. How can a Christian, a Christian leader at that, pull the lever for someone who is a member of a cult, denies the Divinity of Christ, in addition to being pro abortion, for gay rights, and implemented the exact same program on medical care Obama did. What is it you are solving by voting for Romney? A more godless nation than we have now?

 

[saturneptune]

I wonder why Gingrich hasent been harping on this?

Because he is as big of a moral thug as Romney, just not a Mormon.

 

[saturneptune]

He is a politician and a Mormon. What else can a heathen do?

Bravo, how low can you go? Maybe Hitler is lower, not sure.

 

[saturneptune]

So you'd vote to replace one corporatist with another? How does that make sense?

Eenie meanie mighty mo catch a corporatist by the toe if he hollers let him and go and replace him with another corporatist just as bad or worse as the first!

I fail to see the logic.

Amen, it seems very few on this board learned anything from the elections of 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. How many times does one have to be smacked upside the head to get their attention?

 

[saturneptune]

....but that really isn't the moral and ethical thing to do. If I vote in one unworthy and inept person only to keep out the first unworthy and inept person, then doesn't that make me unworthy and inept as a voter?




Not at all, if you are choosing the lesser of two evils that are set before you (I say two because a third-party candidate has zero chance of winning). It's called pragmatism.

No, its called selling your soul.

 

[saturneptune]

From the article linked in the OP...

"The court decision Romney is referring to is a 1981 MSJC decision that ruled that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for medicaid eligible women."

This statement leads me to think that the issue is not a simple as the OP suggests.

Unless Havensdad thinks that the state constitution should have been ignored.

Perhaps Havensdad can provide us a link to the Romneycare bill that mentions abortion.

I suspect that the bill made no mention of abortion and that the court is inserting abortion as a covered procedure based on the state constitutional wording.

Just speculation on my part.

It has nothing to do with Romney care. It has to do with the record of Romney on the issue of abortion while governor of MA. He either supported it, or allowed it to go further. To blame the legislature is baloney. He was up to his neck in it. On top of that, the idiot pounds the podium now shouting out right to life. He is doing nothing short of pandering for votes from the blood of innocent children. Romney does not care about abortion one way of the other, he cares about being elected.

 

[saturneptune]

"Killing and displacing of millions of brown skinned people"?

What does this mean?

If you mean illegal immigration, Obama claims to have deported more illegal aliens than any other President.

If you are talking about Iran and Afghanistan, Obama is the only candidate that has ordered the killing of anyone - including American citizens - in the name of national security.

What does that have to do with the moral fitness of Romney being President of the Untied States?

 

[targus]

What does that have to do with the moral fitness of Romney being President of the Untied States?

You need to read within the context of the discussion.

I said nothing about Romney and his fitness for being President.

I was asking for an explanation of the meaning of "displacing and killing millions of brown skinned people".

 

[targus]

It has nothing to do with Romney care. It has to do with the record of Romney on the issue of abortion while governor of MA. He either supported it, or allowed it to go further. To blame the legislature is baloney. He was up to his neck in it. On top of that, the idiot pounds the podium now shouting out right to life. He is doing nothing short of pandering for votes from the blood of innocent children. Romney does not care about abortion one way of the other, he cares about being elected.

Again, you need to read within the context of the discussion.

I was speaking to the link provided in the OP - which would be the topic of the discussion.

 

[targus]

Amen, it seems very few on this board learned anything from the elections of 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. How many times does one have to be smacked upside the head to get their attention?

Saturneptune, who do you support to be the next President?

 

[PamelaK]

I don't like Mitt. I don't like Newt. I don't see much hope for the Republican party of which I am a diehard member. But a vote for any other person other than these two is a vote for Obama. That's just how it is.

I keep telling myself that I will vote for anyone but Obama - if only to keep Obama from winning again...

....but that really isn't the moral and ethical thing to do. If I vote in one unworthy and inept person only to keep out the first unworthy and inept person, then doesn't that make me unworthy and inept as a voter?

This voting right - that my grandmother did not have as young woman - it means a lot to me and I am very conflicted as to what to do.

Scarlett - I remember going through this conflict in the past. No more! In my view voting is totally an issue of conscience. This is what I would suggest to you - and what I did myself when I voted in South Carolina last week. Pain free! Determine what you are looking for in a candidate. Are there any deal maker-breakers? Then research each candidate. PRAY over your decision. Go with your result from all that regardless of popularity, polls, pragmatism, political expediency - you get my point. Then you will be assured that YOU have voted for the right person!

 

[Havensdad]

OK Not surprised Romney is a liar.

Paul is a hypocrite.

Gingrich is a moral degenerate.

The only one I know of that has admitted his sin and asked God for forgiveness is the moral degenerate.

Oh, what to do. :BangHead:

Ron Paul has been 100 percent consistent with his stated beliefs. Your comparison is idiotic. The only criticism that you can lay at his feet, is that he earmarked, in accordance with his belief that funds should be earmarked, funds which he voted and fought against in the first place.

I know you are a big Barak Obama fan, and want him to have all the free money he can get, but c'mon. Get over it. Paul kept a few million dollars out of his greedy little hands. Don't worry; he'll get plenty more.