Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins
Listen to interview at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/a-goode-plan-to-save-american-jobs/?cat_orig=money
As President Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney remain locked in a virtual dead heat, is there any room for a third party to make a statement or even be competitive in 2012?
That’s the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.
Goode says Obama’s spending is completely out of control but Republican proposals are also not good enough because he says the budget needs to be balanced now and not in a few years or a couple of generations from now.
“I would submit a balanced budget if elected president, and it would be painful,” Goode told WND.
He expects a fierce fight with Congress about cutting spending, but his plan would not focus on entitlement reforms. Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending – both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget. When it comes to jobs, Goode’s top priorities are to end illegal immigration and nearly put a stop to legal immigration in order to prevent foreign workers from competing with Americans for the job opportunities that exist.
“We’ve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t get food stamps,” said Goode.
Goode says he would also seek to repeal Obama administration regulations that he says are stifling job creation. He would start with the Obama health care-laws which Goode considers the most repressive to job creators. The former congressman says he is not a spoiler in the race but is a much needed voice on fiscal responsibility, ending government programs for illegal immigrants and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I never said Darwinists don't understand my arguments. I said I had mainly been unsuccessful in getting them to question their presuppositions.
Don't write into me what I didn't say. And I don't care *who* you are: a misrepresentation is a misrepresentation.
Must run.
If Romney is this, then why doesn't he support a flat tax or other type of tax reform that would actually take the burden off of producers, allowing them to grow small businesses, increase employment, and expand growth? Why does Romney basically support the current progressive taxation scheme that penalises the rich and the productive, while redistributing wealth to lower income brackets? Why did Romney increase fees that directly affected people engaging in economic transactions (like the real estate transfer tax, as well as his proposed internet tourism tax, which fortunately never came to fruition) or in the exercise of their constitutional rights (like quadrupling the gun licensing fee)?
As a general comment, I think we need to understand that being "pro-business" is not necessarily being "pro-capitalism." Often, being the creature of big business means you will help to stifle a truly free market, since that helps to eliminate portential competitors to the bigger fish.
Typical thought-output coming from those trained in liberal high school & college campuses from the PC -multi-culturalists in charge of the propaganda (curricula).
There’s a small but very vocal contingent here whose love & adoration of all Mormonistic teachings is so total and complete that they’d rather the nation’s youngest generation(s) convert to Mormonism and suffer eternal hell if only they can make Willard Mitt Romney the icon and idol to be emulated as THE exemplary “I wanna be like Mitt when I grow up.”
Politics is the art of the possible. In politics one orders from the menu based on expected practical outcomes.
The Free Republic He-Man Mitt-Haters Club is not engaging in politics, but rather is battling Satan. Thus rational expectations of the practical outcomes of the various choices are irrelevant. "Purity" of motivation is the only thing that matters to the holy warrior.
Nice attempt @ mind-reading.
Except that the Mittbots like yourself aren't very good @ applying "practical outcomes" to their own line of thinking.
How so?
#1 Forget about the GoP being able to "hold the line" and critique big govt socialist healthcare with pro-abortion candidate philosophies/track record once you have people embrace somebody (Mitt) to the left of LBJ. (How's that for a "practical outcome?")
#2 Then there's the "practical outcome" of embracing political relativism. In this mode of thought, your children & grandchildren -- having learned from you how to exercise it -- will vote in a Gop candidate to the left of Obama. Why? (Because he/she is "more conservative" than the "D" candidate)
#3 Or try on the following utilitarian voting scheme and see if you embrace this pragmatism:
If you live in a state which will go Obama, anyway (Left Coast, NY, NJ, other lib states), your vote for Romney won't matter in making any diff vs. Obama.
If you live in a Mormon state like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and AZ, your vote for Romney won't matter there, either, as a FREEPER. If you subtract all FREEPER votes from those states, the Mormons will sweep in Romney 99-1 -- at least within the Mormon bloc, which is a high % in those states...less so in AZ.
If you live in a conservative state which would ne'er consider a Dem or Obama, your vote for Romney won't matter there, either, as a FREEPER. If you subtract all FREEPER votes from those states, there wouldn't be enough Obama sentiment to vote him in.
That leaves only the genuine swing states -- and NOT the MSM-pegged "swing states" as of yesteryear or even as of May, 2012...but the genuine "swing states" as of late Oct 2012...
Those are the ONLY FREEPERs who have a genuine "dilemma" of a vote.
The rest who operate upon principle have absolutely NO EXCUSE to vote for the big govt, pro-abortion, socialist healthcare pioneer Mitt Romney. **************************
Note to all: People like Rogue Yam preach pragmatic utilitarian relativism all the time...Yet for some reason, we don't hear the same realities cited in #3 above from them. Why not?
If they were truly I'm-not-for-Romney-but-I'm-against-Obama, they would preach this pragmatic message. But they don't...which is why they are sheer transparent Mittbots.
Judging motives is above my paygrade. So, all I can look at is actions. And your actions are in support of a known pro-choice democrat socialist liar.
Nutritionally, you are what you eat.
Politically, you are what you endorse.
Yesterday Hussein awarded the Medal of Freedom to Dolores Huerta and here you are today campaigning for him.
Nice work, comrade.
There’s only one person in this conversation supporting a socialist, and it’s not me.
... very vocal contingent here whose love & adoration of all Mormonistic teachings...
Then they are ALL over here; giving one another high fives and wedgies!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2889431/posts
Finally, Grasshopper, you get it!
(But there's not REALLY much difference between them; is there?)
That's almost as good as being a NAZI!
Obama
He is a radical left Progressive cum anarchist.
_________________________________________
So it appears you have something against “radicals” and “progressives”
But Willard claims to be just the same...
and has been the same...
there are Conservatives who object to your radical progressive Willard and yet you are trying to ram him down our throats ...
“He added that “if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child — in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something which people have the right to do” Willard Romney, Washington Post, May 10, 2012)
“I think the old standby definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign. I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican—that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”
-Mitt Romney (2002)
I do hapen to agree with a radical progressive or 2 though...
This one is 180 degrees away from your attitude about Willard...and from Willard himself..
“If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”
George Washington
In my last, I mentioned Saul Alinsky. WRT Mitt Romney,
_____________________________________________
AH yes Saul Alinsky. the good friend of the Romney family...
What of him ???
Willard using what Saul taught he and his father George ???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ???
BS. Go read the posts yourself. Early on in the primary, reasonable people attacked Mitt's liberal policies. This didn't work. Mitt went on to lead in spite of our best efforts. He's now the nominee and many reasonable people, including myself have resigned themselves to the fact that despite all his faults, Romney is far preferable to Obama. Romney has a liberal record as governor. We get it.
This leaves the unhinged cranks stomping their feet like petulant children, posting stridently about polygamy, magic underwear, planet Kolob and Mormonism's racist past. Failing to sway people away from Romney based on his governorship, they now want to sway people away from Romney on the basis of his religion. For what point? Attacking Mitt now does nothing but provide aid to Obama's campaign. Spin it however you want, this is the flat truth.
I do not agree with it...I think it will effectively give Obama another term if too many people do it...which I think is the worst of all the outcomes in this election...but I understand it and respect it. In many ways, the GOP has brought such a course of action from folks who choose that way on themselves.
I have not said that anyone who is against Romney is "anti-Mormon," though others may have. To the contrary, based on what I just posted, I feel that most are not "anti-Mormon," but are doing it out of their own commitment to principle, even if I disagree with it.
That said, there are definitley some who are clearly "anti-Mormon," in their motivations as much or more than they are in their politcal principle basis, and it pervades their comments and posts regarding the matter and is obvious to anyone seeing them...but it is certainly, IMHO, not the majority.
In addition, thought I do not want or like, and personally will not do anything by my action or inaction to allow Obama another term...it is because of his record and his success and effectiveness in dismantling our republic. Not that I fear the man, per sey, much more that I want to do all I can to extend the blessings of liberty and our foundational republican and moral way of life for my kids and grandkids. That's doing it out of love for them, not fear of Obama or any of his other cohorts or abettors.
So...you will have to do what you are going to do for the reasons you choose, as is your right. I respect that right, and I respect the reasons most people are choosing to stand against the GOP establishment.
I personally, because of the reasons I have listed here several times...people I know and respect who lived under Romney's governance, people I know and respect who know the Romney's and have attended Church with him and been involved as he was their church leader before being governor, my own research into the Mass State System and how they have impacted the capabilities of their Governors, the vetoes Romney issued, the changes he says he has made, and the issues he lists and states very directly he is running on.
Based on all of that, despite the instances in his record which I flatly disagree with, I believe the man, if elected will be orders of magnitude better than Obama and will lead, with a majority House and Senate which we must elect in any case, a strong turn around in America.
I honestly belive that, and that honest belief is based on my own research and conversations with people who are much closer to the time he was Governor, and much closer to the Romnies themselves than I am.
it is not blind, it is not autistic, it is not fear motivated, and it is not simply wishful thinking. I will admit that there is hope involved...but hope based on those things I listed is a good and healthy hope I believe Betty Boop comes at it from much the same perspective...but will not pretend to speak to that detail for her.
I hope you will realize, as I do in respecting your decision though not agreeing with it, that the basis for my own is equally deserving of your respect as opposed to the labeling you have been broad brushing...even if you clearly do not agree with it.
I do believe all of us can and should work on the House and Senate at the Federal level, and at the state and local levels to elect as many strong conservatives who base their campaigns on our fundamental moral and republican principles which undergird the constitution. That is surely an area where we can agree and work together.
The other is going to be what it is going to be...I am going to work hard to defeat Obama and get Romney elected in his stead...and that will either work or not. In either case, electing these others is just as compelling and importnat to me and I believe to most others here on FR.
God's speed.
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.