True, but that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney isn't one of them, in fact, he is the exact opposite.
Posted on 06/02/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Some lies are easier to spot than others. “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.” “The check is in the mail.” “A vote for anybody but Romney is a vote for Obama.”
The people who repeat this last lie are undeniably sincere. They don’t recognize that they’re merely repeating a manipulative platitude, calculated to keep voters within the ideological boundaries of a thoroughly corrupt two party system. The falsehood being parroted sounds almost exactly like it did four years ago except, in 2008, the name “McCain” was used in place of “Romney.”
Once again the GOP faithful are being admonished to fall in line behind a political “choice” that was made for them many months ago. The individuals who made this decision included power brokers and policymakers representing both major parties. When the efforts of party leaders combine with their cronies in the media, corporations and influential moneyed interests, the outcome tends to favors them no matter who wins.
This was what author Carroll Quiqley referred to in his book “Tragedy and Hope” when he wrote: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
The fact that the likely GOP nominee and the current president share virtually identical stances on foreign policy, the welfare state, and monetary policy should be a strong clue that whichever candidate the voters elect this November, no actual change will occur.
Both candidates demonstrate disdain for the rule of law by their ongoing support of extra-judicial detentions and killings in the name of national security. Neither Romney nor Obama advocates a return to limited government and greater respect for the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. The interests of those who back them are hardly the interests of the American people.
So is it any surprise that the political ruling class keeps telling us that those candidates whose principles reflect greater freedom, constitutionally limited government, and responsible fiscal, monetary and foreign policies are “unelectable?” There seem to be just enough gullible voters each election cycle willing to take these official pronouncements at face value.
If there’s a lesson to be learned here, it’s that most coverage of the presidential election seems intended to distract the people from understanding the real issues.
Thankfully, an increasing number of voters are refusing to accept the false dilemma they’re being offered. These are the citizens who have taken the time to educate themselves politically, economically, spiritually, and philosophically. They recognize that the fraudulent two party system offers no real choice. They understand that the only vote for Obama will be one that comes from a person actually casting their ballot for Obama.
These are the voters who know that any political leader who supports gun bans, socialized medicine and the denial of due process when imprisoning or murdering individuals is unworthy of their vote. Whether that candidate’s name is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is irrelevant. People who are in the habit of basing their decisions upon principle rather than pragmatism are more difficult to deceive.
Columnist Vin Suprynowizc once asked his readers to imagine that they were citizens of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. He asked them how they would want to address their grandchildren as they approached the end of their lives. Would they prefer to tell their families “They told us that our only choice was between the Nazis and the Communists. So I had to choose the lesser of the two evils”? Or would they rather say, “I refused to support either the fascists or the Bolsheviks. Because of this, I was shouted down, marginalized and abused for refusing to acquiesce, but I stayed true to my conscience and to my principles”?
The future of our nation doesn’t hinge upon the outcome of this single presidential election. But it has a great deal to do with the long-term character and principles of the voters who will participate in this and future elections. If they can be deceived every election cycle into selling out for an illusory short-term political gain, we will all lose in the long run.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
Ping
Once more “principled” people try to pretend before God and man that in a main election, a spoiler does something different this year than spoilers did in past years.
The time to get “the right stuff” was the primaries. Tea Partiers, bless their bitter clinging souls, were about as organized about this as a herd of cats. Putting up a main election challenger is not merely too little too late, it is counterproductive. It is not for no reason that “Perot” became a verb, to GHWB’s chagrin and Trashy Bill Clinton’s delight.
Now, of course, we would do well to encourage LIBERALS who are upset with Barack Obama to field their OWN spoilers!
Our choice is obama or whatever.
ABO is my guiding light, and if no other is viable, it has to be Romney.
I don't prefer that, but I cannot live with a clear conscience if zero is re-elected and I had voted for __________ as an idealogical or protest vote.
That's the fact of it all.
THX 1138
Well for crying out loud, who cares as long as our team wins!
I’m a lot more concerned about those downticket races. One more progressive republican in the white house won’t make things any better since they all think they’re royalty.
I encourage people to get out and vote for someone (Romney, write in, or 3rd party) as long as you hit those downticket races.
I also hope people start taking part in the instate party politics. In Michigan the GOPe elements (Saul Anuzis and Holly Hughes) were removed from their seats on the republican national committee last week and it only takes a few hundred people in each state to make the difference.
“The future of our nation doesn’t hinge upon the outcome of this single presidential election”......
Pardon me! We certainly have had more than one pivotal POTUS election in our history, but THIS ELECTION is undeniably the icing on the cake. Everything “most of us” hold dear are in danger from nobama and the dems. This poarticular guy has shown he is unafraid of either Congress or the Constitution by taking on doing whatever he pleases by caviot outside the rule of law
3rd party vote or no vote is one of the things right up there with Acorn-type voter registration/fraud, that could save nobama.
Other than Mormon hatred, its hard to see your rational point.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won.
Spot on!
This article is a load of sanctimonious, self-important bull.
There are many admirable young up-and-coming leaders in the GOP.
Congratulations, you are the first to make this thread about mormonism and not the topic.
You win!!!!
Now the flood gates are open.
Spoken by the champion purveyor of "sanctimonious, self-important bull" on FR.
And so once more it all devolves into a battle of the bots. Mittbots vs. antiMittbots.
Sad.
It's just not right.
Voting for a socialist is promoting socialism and if choosing between 2 socialists with an agenda to take what earnings individual labor creates to pass on to others forcibly, then we are already a country that once shined brightly the beacon of freedom that has gone dark without a cry of why or a roar of a battle.
Really bad analogy. The Weimar Republic was a parliamentary multi-party system in which governments were usually formed by coalitions among the parties. If enough people supported the non-Nazi and non-commie parties, then these extremists stayed out of power.
We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.
This, in theory, could change at some time in the future. This year, it is quite obviously true.
No Romney and no Obama. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
When the two parties have the same agenda and promote the same agenda then a vote for either of the two parties is a waste for with or without a vote the outcome is the same.
I've heard that since I started becoming politically aware and that was before I was old enough to vote. I'm 66 years old.
Every election is the "most important" in our life times.
The superb cat herding performance of the Tea Party has not supplied America with any viable alternative in November. Now it’s time for the pussies to get out of the picture.
REAL perspective: Romney stinks; Obama is an industrial scale reek calling for hazmat suits and the EPA Superfund.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
And yet it happened. The electoral college system virtually guaranteed it. It’s possibly America’s biggest constitutional Achilles’ heel.
It would be interesting to puzzle out how the constitution could be rejiggered to welcome third parties without ending up with the perpetually shifting micro-coalitions of Eurotrashia.
In the meantime, the occasion to call out heroes is during the primaries. Open or closed, the GOP turnout for same this year stank worse than Barack Obama.
Can’t y’all take a bit of iron-y in your Geritols?
I bitterly clung with the best of them through the primaries. I was hopping up and down for Sarah Palin to enter the race. Then I cheered for Herman Cain. When he got Ratted out (I still wonder if any of those scandal allegations had any truth to them — more like women he did a favor did not want that to go unpunished), then Santorum was the champ — in Iowa and that’s it, and the One State Wonder petered out. Gingrich seemed promising with his experience at Contract With America. And now we saw a civil war of pot shots between Santorum and Gingrich aficionados, when either one would have been vastly preferable to Romney. If this reflects what happened in the outer world, then Tea Partiers have much to learn about being organized. Whatever the faults of “GOPe,” uncoordination was not among them.
The bed is made now. I’d rather go with the Mitt pillow than the Barack one.
At least until yesterday or last year or last month or whatever
Some much financial clout and so little time to spend it.
The answer to the “puzzle” is simple. It is for the American people to begin to look exclusively at, and judge candidates solely by, adherence to the first principles of the republic, not something so trivial as a mere party label.
New tagline...
Primaries are the time for the interesting action.
America’s response to finding the Mr. Wonderful most likely positioned to beat Barack Obama (whether we like it or not that was within the GOP) was a monstrous MEH.
Hey dude why not can the pretense and just write in Jesus Christ on your ballots. In every position. Everything else is a “tolerable” evil.
It wouldn’t be very biblical, of course. We know when the government is on His shoulders it won’t be due to any human election.
That way of thinking is what got us to where we are.
No thanks.
What the hell is GOP-E?
It’s been on half the threads on FR for a year and I have never seen an explaination of what it is!
I disagree. The word "party" does not appear anyplace in the constitution or in any amendment to it.
We have a "party-not-mentioned" system, so to assert as so many have that it is a "two party system" is only to repeat an opinion about a current way of doing things.
Proof that this is so is that the Constitution only requires a plurality for election to the presidency.
I prefer this "fraudulent two party system" to a possible one-party system.
If 'bam stays in, this is a real possibility.
Vote for Romney and you vote for a president, not a dictator. If 'bam wins it may not be so. Remember this.
Don't make 'best enemy of the good.'
ABO
GOP establishment
Inaccurate.
A majority of the Electoral College is required for election.
If the EC cannot come up with a majority, then the President is elected by a majority of the House, voting by state delegation.
In both cases, a majority vote rather than a plurality is required.
The President could theoretically be elected by the EC though winning something around only 25% of the popular vote. But then the popular vote is totally irrelevant to the election of the President.
Why don’t you lazy bastards type it out?
Actually it is the pussies bending over to the GOPe flavor of the month that got us here....
You are correct that the two-party system is not found in the Constitution.
Does not change the fact that, perhaps unfortunately, it exists.
With the exception of the pre-Civil War period when the Whig Party fell apart, in every election where a third party played a significant role its primary effect was to elect the group the third party’s supporters most opposed.
Romney is so much better than Obama. This whole discussion is crazy.
Do the words, Supreme Court Justices, mean anything to you?
Anyone Most Likely To DEFEAT Obama
At this juncture once Primaries have passed, all the other arguments against Romney are both moot and counterproductive to ridding us of the socialist plague looking for a second shot to complete both fleecing us of our treasury and what's left of our freedom.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
Agreed. No votes for socialists.
Actually, it’s no longer “ABO” — it’s “NBR”. Nobody But Romney.
Kinda puts a different spin on the rhetoric, doesn’t it?
“We have, for better and worse, a two-party system. A vote for a third party is wasted.”
I would disagree in this regard...
We have a multi-party system inside each of the two parties.
On the R side, we have everything from the John Birch Society to the Libertarians.
When a party runs a candidate that is not acceptable to the majority of those across the full spectrum,
the disaffected have strong temptation to support a candidate outside the party that best represents their
interests. To assume that just because someone has an R by there name means they share an equal passion for
every issue, is I think, a false assumption. The party is not monolithic in regards to interests.
THAT is where we are with Romney. He represents weakly, SOME fiscal ideas, weakly, SOME (but not all) social ideas,
and comes with a history of representing the opposite side of most of what many of us are committed to.
It is no surprise that he is not a much-loved candidate. It won’t be a surprise when some significant percentage
of our side goes fishing that day in November...
You are quite correct. I was being overly simplistic.
Our system operates on a coalition basis, just like a parliamentary system.
The only real difference is that in our system we usually put together the coalitions within the parties rather than between the parties.
Hey, easy now. I’ve never posted the ‘GOPe’ moniker until just now. I was merely answering your question. The “bastard” comment was uncalled for. My lineage is well documented, unlike the POTUS....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.