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

[Havensdad]

You should just say you disagree with his non-interventionist policy, say that we SHOULD bee the world's police, instead of calling his policy something that it is not.

Amen. Now could everyone PLEASE stop hijacking this thread, and get back to Romney...you know, the OP?

 

[webdog]

You should just say you disagree with his non-interventionist policy, say that we SHOULD bee the world's police, instead of calling his policy something that it is not.

I would if thats what i thought it was. Every time we provide financial and military aid we are acting like "world police"? Thats quite the hyperbole. Which nations acted like "world police" in helping us gain our freedom, and were you opposed to that?

 

[webdog]

Amen. Now could everyone PLEASE stop hijacking this thread, and get back to Romney...you know, the OP?

In fairness you led the chasing of the rabbit with your Paul rhetoric

 

[targus]

That would be dumb. He cannot earmark the entire bill. Given that quandry, he must look out for his constituents. He is THEIR representative.

But you have said over and over that Ron Paul believes that 100% of spending should be earmarked.

And you have agreed with him.

Now it is "dumb"?

Horrible reasoning. Paul only has a small percentage of the total power of the House. He can only earmark a small percentage (approximately equal to the size of his district).

Says who?

Show me where that is written.

His obligation, is that if he cannot influence or stop the entire bill, to at least direct the small portion he is able to take charge of.

So Ron Paul who says that he supports the Constitution only acts in his official capacity to get money to his district?

And he does. But, again, he only gets to earmark a very small percentage of the funds. He is the Representative of HIS district. That is how the system works.

Then why doesn't he work to change the system rather than earmarking money for unconstitutional uses?

There is no "fantasy land." You are trying to invent hypocrisy where there is none. Paul is the representative of his district. He is not in charge of the entirety of Congress.

So he should put his district ahead of the Constitution?

 

[Havensdad]

I think Jesus gave us a good reason to avoid interventionism with His description of the Good Samaritan and those who could have helped but didn't.

No one here is against voluntary charity. We should DEFINITELY engage in voluntary charity, such as seen in the story of the good Samaritan. We should NOT forcibly take Americans tax dollars to funnel it through our secular government and dishonest politicians.

 

[Havensdad]

In fairness you led the chasing of the rabbit with your Paul rhetoric

No I did not. I never mentioned Paul.

 

[Havensdad]

But you have said over and over that Ron Paul believes that 100% of spending should be earmarked.

And you have agreed with him.

Now it is "dumb"?

Your statement is dumb. Paul cannot earmark every penny of every bill by himself. That is absurd.

Says who?

Show me where that is written.

In the name of the body. "House of REPRESENTATIVES."

So Ron Paul who says that he supports the Constitution only acts in his official capacity to get money to his district?

Of course not. He is fighting for the Constitution within his power.

Then why doesn't he work to change the system rather than earmarking money for unconstitutional uses?

He has. He cannot get any help; the rest of the Representatives are bought and paid for.

So he should put his district ahead of the Constitution?

Not at all. If he is not able to earmark an entire bill, he should earmark that part which he can in fact, earmark. This is what he does...i.e. all that he can.

 

[Havensdad]

Targus; please refrain from posting anymore about Ron Paul. Go start your own thread. THIS thread is about that lying liberal Romney.

 

[webdog]

There has never been a more false, or dangerous untruth. Gingrich has absolutely no chance of winning. Romney is no better than Obama... actually, he is worse, cause Obama tells us exactly how liberal he is, unlike Romney, who lies about it.

We are never told to vote for a demon, to keep the Devil out of power. Besides, what you are saying is wrong. Paul, among all the candidates, polls best against Obama in terms of independents. Thus, if we are looking for the "electable" candidate, we should be rallying behind Paul.

just wanted to refresh Havensdad's memory about who brought Paul up first derailing this thread.

Oh...did you see USAToday? Electability gallup poll, Romney 48%, "O" 47%. "O" 54%, Newt 40%. "O" 50%, Paul 43%
"O" 51%, Santorum 44%.

Paul's the most electable, eh?

 

[webdog]

No I did not. I never mentioned Paul.

Care to edit this?

 

[Havensdad]

Care to edit this?

Not really. My comment was in direct response to someone making a blanket statement about ALL the candidates...including Ron Paul.

"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."

This thread is to discuss Mitt Romney. This was legitimate. If you want to discuss the policies of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, etc., start your own thread.

 

[webdog]

...and in true Paulian fashion, when you got them dead to rights, they still cannot be wrong. Fact: the first mention of Ron Paul is by you on page 1. Fact: you stated, and I quote "I never mentioned Paul. Fact: you falsely accused others of derailing your thread
when you were the reason for the derailment.

put down the Kool-Aid and back away from the table slowly...

 

[saturneptune]

Strong words.

Choosing between bad and worse is not selling one's soul. It's being realistic.

So if there's no one with whom you have complete trust and agreement, would you refrain from voting?

Go ahead, vote for a third-party candidate; and by doing so, make your statement. Just don't complain if BO is back for another four years because of a split-party vote.

You bet it is making a statement, and I stand 100% behind it. One day we will answer for our votes, and I hang my head in shame for every Bush vote, three times, and McCain.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think Jesus gave us a good reason to avoid interventionism with His description of the Good Samaritan and those who could have helped but didn't.

Charity is the act of an individual, not a collective. (You worded your statement wrong, but I won't dwell on it.)

 

[saturneptune]

Why does everyone insist on bringing up Ron Paul in a Romney thread? Could it be you do not want to talk about the fact you are considering voting for cult member who degrades Jesus Christ, a pro abortionist, pro gay rights person, pro gun control, and the man who established a government run medical care system pretty much like Obamas? Are you really going to vote for a man that has made a u turn on a dime and now preaches conservative values? Are you really going to vote for a man who really does not care about abortion one way or the other, that only cares about being elected? How about voting for a man pandering for votes off the blood of innocent children? So how does it feel considering a vote for a person who is going to take us further down the path of being a godless nation more than we already are?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:thumbs:

You've heard it. Right here on the ole' BB....people excuse Newt & Romney, they know they ain't "perfect", yeah, we'll have global warming capitulation, and the people who obeyed the law and did what they were told to do to become citizens will see people who broke the law get the same benefits they had to sacrifice for, and y'know, we really can't do anything about abortion, and we will still lick China's boot, because these wars & populace surveillance cost money....but at least we won't have the "racist" Ron Paul in.

 

[Don]

There's a lot of talk about the negativity of Romney and Gingrich right now.

If only they'd look at places like the BB and see how torn the people who don't want Obama for another term are, from knowing that there isn't a good choice....

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

But anybody is better than Obama.

John

How is Romney better than Obama?

 

[saturneptune]

How is Romney better than Obama?

The one way he is better is that at this point in time, Romney is not in office and can do no harm.

 

[targus]

The one way he is better is that at this point in time, Romney is not in office and can do no harm.

That actually made me laugh and it's funny because it's true. :laugh:

Saturneptune, who would you like to see in office?