Posted on 10/28/2015 5:04:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This budget deal -- and every time this subject comes up I have to point out that, well, even 25 years ago when this program started, to discuss something like the federal budget was one of the biggest mistakes you could make in terms of programming content. I mean, it was so esoteric and so boring, and it contained its own language that did not relate to people. It was instant death. You just didn't talk about the budget.
My, how things have changed. This budget deal -- and we first alerted it to you on Monday, saw a little flash news blurb from Bloomberg detailing what the House Republicans were doing, getting ready to do. And they've done it. They have crafted a budget that essentially gives nobody any reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
It is astounding what they have done, particularly when you balance it against what they've promised us they would do. They have reneged on every promise, written and oral, that they have made, beginning back in 2010 when it comes to what they would do vis-a-vis the budget, government spending overall, and how they would behave in battle with the Democrats. They've tossed it all aside.
Everything Obama wants and then some is in this budget. Raising the debt limit over $1 trillion which takes it off the table as an issue all the way through next year. The budget is also a two-year budget which takes it out of the presidential campaign which makes whoever the next president is, and the next Congress, they're saddled with this budget. I mean, every budget is technically a one-year budget. I know this, and they can make 10-year projections, five-year, what they've actually done here is try to craft a two-year budget.
And when I went through it last night and looked at it, and I went back and with the assistance of a column written by my buddy Andy McCarthy at PJMedia.com, I started boiling. I was literally infuriated. I have to tell you, folks, I am beyond able to understand the political thinking now of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, particularly as it relates to the presidential race. I can't figure it out. What they are doing makes literally and absolutely no sense. It makes no sense in dollars and cents. It makes no sense budgetarily. It makes no sense politically. They're not even an opposition party. They're not even pretending anymore to be an opposition party.
When you look at what they've done with this budget -- we'll get into some details -- basically all you need to know is whatever Obama wants, he's got. Whatever Hillary wants, she's got. Whatever you thought you were voting for in 2010 and 2014, you've been lied to, in terms of how your representatives were gonna fight the Democrats, fight spending, fight this constant bloat. We can now officially claim that the Republicans are responsible for five trillion additional new dollars added to the national debt. Spending bills originate in the Congress. The president could ask and demand and do whatever, but he can't write the bills, he can't write the laws. All he can do is sign them or veto them.
We turned over the writing of the budget to Obama and the Democrats, essentially. It wouldn't be much different if they had started the whole process and completed it. So I don't know how this helps them. I don't know how they think it helps them. I don't know why it's happening. Is this all because of the demands made by donors? I mean, that's the latest excuse we're given for everything else they're doing. "Well, the donor class, they're demanding this, and donor class is demanding amnesty, donor class is demanding nuke deal with Iran." Is what explains this budget deal, that donors are demanding all of this? Or have the Republican leadership just become a bunch of pathological actual left-wingers in the last couple years?
I don't see the difference in the current Republican House leadership. When it comes to government spending, the whole philosophy behind government spending, big government, I don't see any difference between the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership. When I look on the Democrat side I see Pelosi and Reid and everybody cheering the budget. Are they still scared to death of Obama? Do they still think that they have to show that they can work with Obama, be cooperative, let Obama have everything he wants otherwise the media's gonna call them racists?
We've got a year to go, for crying out loud, just one more year of this. And they are going to put it on paper that we get two more years of this. It's the most confounding thing. We've got one year of Obama left, but the Republican leadership in the House has passed a budget, or is about to, that will essentially give us another year of Obama in terms of philosophy on government size and spending.
Are they doing this to prove that they can be bipartisan? Do they think that's gonna help them in the presidential race? Are they doing this to show they can cooperate? Are they doing this to show that they love and support entitlements and nobody should think Republicans are gonna take anything away from them. Are they that defensive? Are they that scared? Are they that convinced the media can define them and there's nothing they can do about it so they may as well do everything the media is demanding of them so that the media will shut up and not be mean to them anymore? Is that what's going on here?
Are they hell-bent on showing their ability to cooperate, cross the aisle? They think that's helping the presidential field by doing this? Are they ambivalent? Are they unfeeling in any way about...? Folks, the blatant lies that Republicans in the House have told their voters during campaigns. All the documents, the contracts, the pledges that they wrote and signed that none of this would happen. Virtually everything they pledged not to do, they are doing in this budget deal.
Are they unconcerned about destroying the economy? Are they so secure in their own existence that they don't care what happens outside their own lives? Are they set now for the rest of their lives because of the votes that they have secured for big donors? Are they happy that in the places they live there isn't any unemployment, there isn't any real difficulty managing the cost of living?
Are they unconcerned about destroying our culture? Do you have any idea what this budget's gonna do to our culture? This culture is creating more dependence and more dependence. It's practically designed to put people on the welfare rolls. It's practically designed to tell people to stop relying on themselves and look to government for whatever you need or whatever you want. That's not who we are. But that's what this budget deal does.
The spending caps that they negotiated with Obama? They've blown those up. The one thing that they won, spending caps, they got rid of them themselves in this deal. I'm trying to understand, are they totally in debt to K Street? Do they all have jobs waiting for them on K Street? It doesn't compute here. Who are these people in the House Republican leadership? What are they? I'll tell you what I've concluded, and it's something that I have forecast before, mentioned before. We've even discussed it on this program.
I think what's going on in Washington right now -- and it isn't new, it's just more visible than it's ever been. I think there's all kinds of bipartisanship going on in Washington. I think there's all kinds of cooperation going on in Washington. I think that it's kumbaya time. I think they are linked arm in arm. I think the bipartisan project is to destroy conservatism. I think they would be happy. They would prefer... I'm talking about the Republican leadership. Not the whole membership, but the Republican leadership.
I have the idea they would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz, and that's not a feeling. I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They, as members of the inside-the-Beltway establishment, no way, no how do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House. They would much prefer Hillary. The only thing that explains this, looked at in any kind of prism of common sense, is that there is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pockmark.
The only thing that explains this: This is not good budgeting. Not only is this not conservative, it's not even Republican, even moderate Republican. This is rubber-stamp liberal Democrat budgetary philosophy. This violates every pledge and promise that they've made in election campaigns going back to 2010, repeated in 2012 during the presidential race, and repeated again in 2014. And I shall remind you word by word of some of the pledges they've made, the contracts they wrote, reminiscent of the Contract with America.
I actually think... You know the Democrats want to get rid of conservatism. They want to get rid of all opposition. That's their modus operandi. The thing here is the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, I think, wants to do the same thing. I think we're a burr on their butts. I think we're a pain in the rear to them. I think they much more resent us than they do liberal Democrats. Romney gave it all away the other day. He gave it all away when he came out -- and have you noticed how there hasn't been any reaction to that anywhere?
I have been studiously observing. Mitt Romney comes out, laments/longs for the good old days when we all get the same facts. There were only three different places you could get news America: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those were the good old days. Those were the good old days when everybody got the same news, everybody got the same facts, and it's easy to collaborate. Democrats and Republicans could work together. But now we have these insurgent, extremist right wingers in this New Media confusing everybody with different facts.
And he also did give some lip service to saying the left has their own version, but he's not concerned about them because the extremists on the left still have the same facts that the Democrat Party has. However, us? We extremists on the right. We seem to be operating with a totally different set of facts and the mainstream doesn't want to deal with it, and the establishment doesn't want to deal with it.
So Romney comes out and sides with the people who called him a liar about paying his taxes, who told everybody he hated women and hated his employees and allowed them to get cancer and didn't care -- and put the dog on the roof of the station wagon -- and much more incendiary stuff designed to destroy his career and his reputation, and that's who he thinks his friends are. So Romney let it out of the bag with this idea that the good old days, you have to go back 25, 27, 28 years to find them. (paraphrased) "Yeah, everybody got the same news!
"Everybody got the same facts! There weren't any controversy day to day over what was what. We could collaborate and get along and everything was fine and dandy and hunky-dory. Yeah. Now we can't do." There hasn't been a... I haven't found any reaction to that anywhere. Have you, Mr. Snerdley? Have you seen it? (interruption) Not a peep. And to me it was the biggest news because it confirmed long-held suspicions. But there hasn't been a repeat of that. There hasn't been a repeat. There hasn't been anybody. I have not seen it other than where it originally appeared, in Breitbart.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, back to the budget deal for just one or two things here. I mentioned at the outset that the Republican leadership has violated practically every promise they made to voters in 2010, 2012, 2014 about how they would behave if they were elected. And what they would do to stop Obama, stop the Democrats, stop the spending. One of the things that Boehner promised was three full days, 72 hours to read all legislation before voting on it.
Not here. This is being rammed through. This is going to have to happen today. It has to happen before Paul Ryan becomes Speaker so his fingerprints are not on it. This is supposedly Boehner's gift to Paul Ryan, a clean Speakership with no budget battles in the immediate future, the budget's done, no arguments with the Democrats. The conservatives out in the country can't do anything to you because it's a done deal, no threats of government shutdown. Boehner thinks this is his present to Ryan as new Speaker, a clean slate when it comes to the budget.
But to make it happen, they have to violate the promise and the pledge that Boehner and the leadership made. If the vote happens before 11:36 p.m. tomorrow, then Boehner's pledge would be violated. It's 144 pages. It raises the debt limit by a trillion dollars. Why does it take 144 pages to do that? But there are many more promises that were made and pledges that were signed way back when.
Let's talk about a Pledge to America, a little pamphlet the Republican leadership put out. It had all kinds of pictures of Boehner and Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, other Republican leaders. And this Pledge to America began thus: "An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
"An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose."
Well, we all read that, those of us who did, we all heard that, those of us who did, "Man, these guys get it. These guys get it. They're gonna go in there and they're gonna stop this stuff. They understand all this elites are implementing things with executive action. The will of the people is being thwarted. Spending is out of control." We bought it. We elected 'em in droves. By the way, this pledge was made when all they had was the House. And this pledge did not say anything about we must have the Senate before we could do any of this. That came later.
They were making these promises when all the Republicans controlled were the House of Representatives, folks. And when they won the House of Representatives, that's when they said, "We can't do any more. We need the Senate." But yet they made these promises when they didn't control the Senate. The Republicans in this Pledge to America promised to do a lot of things to address this crisis. "They said they had 'A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust.' They committed to change the abuses of Democratic leadership, who had 'consolidated authority, abusing the letter and spirit of the House rules to get the outcome desired, while ignoring voices of the American people, the minority, and even dissenters within [its] own party,'" and they were gonna make the Democrats pay for that. It's right from the Pledge to America.
When you hear that now, if you happen to read that now, how do you not snicker or get enraged? When you remember all of the complex, voluminous, endless bills, great consequence, that would no longer be dumped on members, they'd be given no meaningful opportunity to read the legislation, much less propose changes. Everything they pledged just kind of drifted away by the wayside when reality set in.
Further from the pledge: "We recognize that if we are truly committed to addressing the American people’s highest priorities, the House of Representatives must operate differently -- differently from the way the Democrats do now, and differently from the way Republicans did in the past. Change begins at home." This is what they promised to win the House. And here's the requirement to read the bill part of the pledge: "We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on."
Can't blame Republican voters for eating this up. It's exactly what needed to be done. It's exactly what they promised to do. So they were elected and they gained control of the House. And then we began to hear, "Wait. We forgot to tell you something. None of this can be done 'til we have the Senate." But this just scratches the surface on pledges and promises which were made.
Have you read Trumps newly released VA Plan? I like it..... here is his first point (and I think the most important): 1. Ensure our veterans get the care they need wherever and whenever they need it. No more long drives. No more waiting for backlogs. No more excessive red tape. Just the care and support they earned with their service to our country.
I debunked Willard the sociopath/megalomaniac/pathological liar and his little dog and pony show a long time ago. He is part of the large and substantial group of elites in this country that are bringing us to absolute destruction.
BE makes his arguments for what he believes Willard to be. As one whose family has been chin-deep in the infanticide movement that has seen 50-60 million (perhaps more) unborn never have their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness affirmed (since Roe, and even before), to equate him & his family to great monsters in history may not be as hyperbolic as you believe it to be. What makes it worse is that they believe it is morally acceptable, just as many deranged souls today believe sexual degeneracy is thoroughly “normal” and equivalent to normal sexual practices.
Willard, of course, had the unmitigated nerve (hubris, or just part of his sociopathic profile of being a pathological liar as most of the left tends to be) of claiming to be pro-life, and in an attempt to proclaim such a “conversion”, paid off people and groups to buy him legitimacy. Words for someone like that I cannot openly use on our family friendly website.
What I don’t fathom, again, is how after knowing all of this, after his thorough exposure and debunking, that anyone on this website that claims even the most remote support for Conservatism, could defend this individual in any manner and claim acceptability for him to serve in the highest office (especially given that he wasn’t even running to win — believe me, if he had WANTED to win, he had every weapon in his arsenal available to a man with no sense of morality or decency, to have obliterated Zero if he so chose. But those weapons, he knows, are only available for use on his Conservative opposition, not on his fellow friendly leftists. It was the exact same with McQueeg).
Curious you mention that, I had someone FReepmail me asking my opinion on it just today. From what you succinctly described, it sounds like the right prescription for folks that have served our country and have been sadly and immorally short-changed by our government for far too long. They’re the only group in our country who can rightfully stand up and say that they are owed that.
My response is that this has all been covered, asked and answered under almost every scenario. #1, you may not be ready to give him the clinical diagnosis as I did several years ago, but that doesn’t change his conduct and actions that led me (and others) to said conclusion. If it walks like a duck and all that jazz...
You must recall I went to extraordinary efforts (I’m patting myself on the back here, which I probably shouldn’t do, because it’s not making me look selfless, which I actually was trying to go for) that I aggressively and unapologetically replied virtually every time a Willard thread popped up starting from about circa 2004 (when it became apparent he decided to abandon his job as MA Governor, coast to the end, flee it and then run for President as he had planned over a decade earlier with his run against Ted the Swimmer, where his deluded sense of self-importance forecast that the Republicans, and his Conservative enemies, would anoint him for President in 1996).
I had to ask and answer every imaginable question where he was concerned, from policy to personality, et al, from a sympathetic and hostile crowd alike. Literally nothing went unanswered where he was concerned.
Where I dismissed him was a very simple and common-sense conclusion on my part. It was simple because it posited the question, “Was he a successful Governor ?” The answer was an unheralded “no.” How many so-called “successful” Governors are so quick to WANT to get away from the job they were elected to ? He didn’t want to be Governor any more than he wanted to settle in to a long term career as Senator. If he could’ve served 2 years and jumped to President, that was his goal... plus, he’d not have spent much time on the job since he’d have been instantly campaigning for his next office...
2 years... that’s even faster than Zero. At least he had to go 4 whole years in the Senate before going to the White House (and had to toil for a decade in the IL legislature biding his time so he could jump to his earlier goal of getting elected to the U.S. House - when I first heard of him in 2000, when he was literally curb-stomped by Bobby Rush. Yes, kids, Zero was eminently defeatable, if you were actually looking to beat him. Rush wasn’t going to give up his seat to Urkel !).
I’ll tell you that I used to think the notion that both parties were in bed together was a bit silly, perhaps with more than a touch of paranoia. However, what I’ve witnessed occur in this country over the past 20 years (or longer) has led me to conclude that that paranoid delusion may in fact be dead on the money. There’s too many in power in the establishment that are content with the status quo and prefer it to remain like that for the foreseeable future.
I’ve studied state parties where the GOP has slipped from preeminence to moribundity, and they seem to share a similar trait: they have the same leaders that cling to power like a Tiberian bat does to its victims’ necks (apologies for the Star Trek reference, it just fit). They keep power amidst the shrinking pie, and eventually find themselves often getting crumbs and support from the Dem opposition precisely for keeping the GOP opposition from becoming a threat. Indeed, said “Republicans” enjoy a closer relationship with the Democrat majority than they do with any outsiders or reformers. By which time, their sole purposes is to sabotage outsiders/reformers, utterly and completely. If they don’t do so, they lose their power and all the benefits that come with making common cause with the Democrat majority. You’ll see this is the case in many urban locales, too.
Where this is most frightening is that it has spread to the national level, but under slightly different dynamics, where the GOP can “play” the part of the majority on paper, but there’s no real status quo change. No “Conservative” agenda to speak of, beyond the bullshit they feed the stupid voters come election year. Effectively, you have the massive government that both sides support (in their votes, not the rhetoric), and no cuts to anything. Everybody winks and nods that they’re smarter than everybody else.
You ask the question how is the country better off under Zero vs. Willard (assuming Willard was going to try to win, which was not a part of the deal). The answer is, there would be no difference. Only that the Republicans would be blamed (including those who actually fight against this madness) for the current state of affairs. ZeroCare wouldn’t have been possible without Willard in MA to begin with. You think he’d have dismantled or changed what he gave birth to ? Of course not.
Willard perfectly demonstrated in office and in actions that he’s not a Conservative whatsoever. He was raised a leftist by parents who were Democrat Socialists at heart but decided it would be easier in 1962 Michigan to utilize a weak MI GOP to gain power over a freshman 2-year Gubernatorial incumbent (unlikely would he have beaten him in a primary). As with George the Terrible, he too also wanted a quick way to the White House and fast (conveniently, 1964 was 2 years away, though that little unpleasantness in Dallas a year after his election put that all on hold).
I mean, seriously, I saw this dog and pony show before with his father. His father was as inappropriately suited for the White House as his boy. He uttered the infamous line about how he was “brainwashed” on supporting the Vietnam War, with the liberal Democrat Sen. Gene McCarthy replying that it was a very “light” rinsing. At least McCarthy was honest.
In the end, doing just a cursory review of Willard would’ve drawn the proper conclusion that he was not on our side, he was never going to be on our side, and would’ve inflicted maximum damage to the national party and Conservative movement because he was with that same group of leftist elites that rotate power because it’s “their turn.” They’re there to stop Conservatives, stop reform, stop any threat to their power. Make no mistake, Willard remains in the power structure now: he just got his protégé and flunky installed as House Speaker, despite clear and present evidence that Ryan is blatantly anti-Conservative, and they cajoled and threatened the party members to support him almost to the last.
Willard, of course, is just part of a much larger problem with our current system, but it was our moral imperative that he was defeated absolutely for any other elective office because if not, it is HE who becomes our face leading the GOP. Look at Nixon, who turned out to enact a lot of really bad leftist policy as President. There were scores of Conservatives who opposed him, but they went down in flaming defeat in 1974 because it was Nixon that was the party face and everything he did wrong got them painted with the broad brushstroke. But what didn’t lose ? The leftist policies, which were then augmented and exacerbated by the Democrats.
A Willard (or McQueeg) “win” would’ve been exactly the same: leftist policies, utter failure, Republican blame, GOP loss at the ballot box, Democrat replacement, more leftist policies and on and on. Power and leftist policies are paramount - they MUST be preserved by the political class at the expense of the Constitution and the people. People must be made to believe that if big gubmint isn’t there to “protect them” all hell will break loose. The dirty little secret is that the political class needs us more than we need them. We’ve got to be liberated from them before they complete their twisted and evil plan for us, and each day we get closer to their goal.
Thanks for that extensive and detailed post FMDJ, your points are quite frankly irrefutable. While I still remain reluctant to assign such a serious diagnosis (not being a doctor) to Romney, I agree that there have always been serious warning signs that ‘something’s just not right’.
It is human nature however, to want to find some kind of ‘other’ explanation if possible for behavior that just doesn’t jive with what is expected, or what appears to be abnormal. We all have quirks in our personalities that in the view of others could suggest that we don’t meet the textbook test of normalcy ourselves. But that is admittedly neither here nor there.
Your extensive study and research into the history of Romney is commendable. (and I might add there is nothing wrong with ‘patting yourself on the back’ when the work you have done is top notch, and yours is, so kudos for that)
I remain resistant however, to the suggestion that Romney is deep down, some kind of serial murderer, a genocidal monster in the same league as mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., those true villains of human history showed their colors early on, their propensity for violence was not easily hidden, and wasn’t. Hitler probably came closest, repackaging himself for the 1932 elections in Germany and offering a more presentable face to the voters who responded to him which made him Chancellor. We know the rest. The question is, would Mitt Romney have turned into the same sort of tyrant had he won the White House? Initiated endless war, social and political oppression, rounding up dissidents for concentration camps and eventual death?
I have to say “probably not”, in fact I would say the odds of such horrific things even yet happening to us are more likely under the remaining time that Emperor Barky has in office, he has shown more of a propensity for such behavior, acting NOT in the national interest, than any other elected official I can think of in my lifetime.
I think we can all agree that Romney will NEVER be President, not necessarily due to anyone who opposed him, organized voters against him (after all, he still won the damn nomination in 2012 didn’t he?), but due to his own failures as a candidate and as you pointed out, he didn’t fight hard enough to win, as Donald Trump said “he choked”.
As I recall in 2012, many FReepers said (as did I) that while Obama and Romney both would drive America towards that cliff, at least Romney would throttle back to a thrifty 55 mph, while Obama was already running over 100 mph, i.e., “if you can’t stop, at least slow down!”
Be that as it may, we are in a whole new situation now, the GOPe is losing it’s grip on their rigged political process, the impending failure of Jebuardo Bush is a testament to that, and that is in large part due to Donald Trump who has stripped the bark off the little bastard and his GOPe co-conspirators. And yes, that includes Romney as well.
My position has always been that we cannot change the past, but we can do all that is possible to change the present and future. I’ve never said or even hinted at somehow resurrecting Romney for a 2016 run, we have superior candidates this election cycle and I believe that despite the GOPe doing all they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, that we as conservatives WILL prevail next year.
What I believe is not constructive at all, is this tendency for some FReepers to engage in endless criticism of the words and actions of others regarding Romney, no one in their right mind truly advocating Romney over other candidates (none that I know of anyway), however many FReepers believed (as did I, as did our Founder) that we could not remain on the sidelines and stay home, or cast a ‘protest’ vote for an obscure candidate that had absolutely no chance of winning, period. How many FReepers did we see in 2008 who said “I’m not voting for McCain, I’m voting for Sarah Palin”? Where were these sages of logic then, to correct everyone that if you were voting for Palin, you WERE voting for McCain because he was at the top of the ticket?
Like the saying goes, “crickets”.
The Romney debacle is behind us. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by post mortems and calls for ‘purges’ by the self appointed holiest divine ones among us, no need to name them, they know who they are. (and I emphasize, I am NOT talking about you FMDJ)
Thanks again for your comments.
I said it many times, quite clearly.
One could always submit the case file to a credible member of the psychiatric community for review. However, since they decided to cave on the face of political - but not scientific - pressure to reclassify homosexuality as not being a clear mental disorder (how could it NOT be ?), their profession has been gravely compromised (and worse yet, an attempt to classify those who have a God-commanded abhorrence to said sexual dysfunction as being those who have mental illness has been floated as of late. The proverbial inmates have taken over the asylum). Anyway, that's for another discussion.
"It is human nature however, to want to find some kind of ‘other’ explanation if possible for behavior that just doesn’t jive with what is expected, or what appears to be abnormal. We all have quirks in our personalities that in the view of others could suggest that we don’t meet the textbook test of normalcy ourselves. But that is admittedly neither here nor there."
Well, we're all individuals with all our little quirks and hang-ups. I actually think a psychiatric analysis of a person who has a credible shot at the Presidency is not out of order. Why do they want the job ? Is it to serve the people or themselves ? Sometimes the answer is as clear as day. I don't believe there has been a Democrat President elected (perhaps Grover Cleveland being the exception) who wasn't clearly and outrageously self-serving (JFK tried to claim otherwise with his rhetoric, but the drive to win and the lengths to which he did just that negated that).
Aspects of the JFK-style narcissism reeked where Willard was concerned, and often went even way beyond that. One example of that on display occurred when Scott Brown won the Senate seat in MA after Ted Kennedy's death. Willard took to the stage and instead of congratulating Brown, he made the whole win and everything all about him. He could've pushed Brown off the stage and declared himself "King of the World." This was the kind of utterly creepy and frightening behavior I'd expect from a lot of Democrats (come to think of it, I don't think JFK would've acted as openly deranged), but I've seen it more and more from establishment Republicans.
We had a State Senator here in TN who ran against the Conservative (but morally flawed) Congressman Scott DesJarlais in the GOP primary. As the race went on, it was hard not to catch a whiff of his overwhelming sense of entitlement to that House seat on the part of the challenger (all the while Dr. DesJarlais went around his district apologizing for his atrocious behavior in the past, which the Democrats had dug up -- he had not displayed any such misconduct while in office, which was a key point. We do want to believe that if a person messes up badly in the past, there is room for forgiveness if it is warranted by their actions). Ordinarily, I'd have been repulsed by DesJarlais in the '90s, but saw fit to give him a pass and endorsement because he had proven to be our state's best voting member. When Election Night came (Summer of 2014), the Senator displayed an almost Willard-level arrogance onstage, insisting he had won and giving his victory speech. He had actually lost and it could not register with him that the voters rejected him. Sadly, I had had a high opinion of the State Senator prior to his run for Congress... until his mask fell off.
I happened to be up in New England from October-November 1994 on an extended vacation, but I was just as interested and concerned about politics then as I am now (I was 20). However, at the time, I was simply as some people are here at FR, Republican at all costs. Every Democrat needs to be defeated, all Republicans elected. Ted Kennedy HAD to be defeated. He represented the ugliest side of Democrat power for over 40 years at that point. I didn't begin to consider what might replace him and said agenda of that person. That was when I first became aware of Willard, and have spent half my life wishing I never had seen him darken the door of politics. It wasn't until some time later that I discerned his aforementioned game plan for the Presidency (and back in 1996, he wouldn't have run to be a ringer against Bubba -- he was running to have a leftist agenda enacted all by his lonesome).
What's so funny, looking back is that he very well could've taken out Ted Kennedy, but another selfish RINO in Massachusetts, the sitting Governor William Weld (another "Slick Willy"), who harbored Presidential ambitions himself (and was a closeted Democrat and close acquaintance of the Clintons who worked very hard for a leftist agenda and declared "jihad" against the Conservatives), did nothing to assist Willard in his race (even as Weld was coasting to one of the most lopsided reelection victories ever enjoyed by a Republican, he won by a nearly 3-to-1 margin -- but he left the rest of the MA GOP to twist in the wind, he utterly refused to help any Republican other than himself. He not only did nothing to help Conservatives, he gave the middle finger to left-leaning Republicans as well, leaving them utterly bewildered, baffled and bemused, if not enraged).
Weld was so execrable, I retroactively endorsed his Conservative Democrat Gubernatorial opponent in 1990, John Silber, who was a better man on his worst day than Weld was on his best. I would not be surprised if Weld voted for Ted Kennedy in 1994 (I sincerely doubt Weld ever voted Republican except for when he was on the ballot - in 1978 when he ran and lost for MA AG; 1990 & 1994 when he ran for Governor & 1996 in his losing race against Sen. "Liveshot" Kerry: two effete leftist snobs). Weld openly endorsed Zero for President. Anyway, I harbor almost as much animosity and contempt for Weld as I do for Willard, and I wrote quite a bit about him on FR in the early '00s through about 2006 when they tried to get him to run for Governor of NY (I'd have actively endorsed and voted for the creep Spitzer over him - he's that horrid). He's a premier example of one of those RINOs I cited in the prior post who would make sure his Democrat buddies are not bothered by any Republicans that might dare try to beat them and displace them from power).
Had Weld not been such a colossal asshole and egomaniac in his own right and helped his fellow leftist RINO Willard to a win, we might've ended up with that latter nightmare in the White House starting in January 1997. There wouldn't have been much left of the GOP come 2000, and he would've been easily dispatched by ex-VP Al Gore, avenging Clinton's loss with huge Democrat majority sweeps of Congress. The ghost of Willard in 2004 probably would've kept Gore in office clear through to 2009, with Hillary succeeding him (what about Zero, you ask ? Well, since Willard's disastrous tenure and loss of Congressional majorities in 1998, Peter Fitzgerald would never have beaten Carol Moseley-Braun, and with CMB running for a second term in 2004 with Gore's reelection assured in IL, Zero would still be serving in the state legislature, waiting for Bobby Rush to retire or Mayor Daley). We'd have had big gubmint health care a decade ahead of time, massive government spending that would've topped $20 trillion by 2010, combined with all the other goodies (open borders/failure to fight the Mohammadan hordes in the middle east). El Jebbe Bush would've been the bits in Hillary's stool in 2008. With tens of millions of legalized illegals and a weak GOP opposition, the Dems would be free to romp for the foreseeable future as we continued to sink into darkness, eventually breaking under the weight of Cloward-Piven. I absolutely believe it would've been that bad and worse, and good ole Willard would be basking in the glow that he helped move us in that direction.
"Your extensive study and research into the history of Romney is commendable. (and I might add there is nothing wrong with ‘patting yourself on the back’ when the work you have done is top notch, and yours is, so kudos for that)"
Of course, it needs a wider audience to be more particular effective. Generally, I'm just preaching to the choir here, or just reinforcing their worst fears of certain individuals.
"I remain resistant however, to the suggestion that Romney is deep down, some kind of serial murderer, a genocidal monster in the same league as mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., those true villains of human history showed their colors early on, their propensity for violence was not easily hidden, and wasn’t. Hitler probably came closest, repackaging himself for the 1932 elections in Germany and offering a more presentable face to the voters who responded to him which made him Chancellor. We know the rest. The question is, would Mitt Romney have turned into the same sort of tyrant had he won the White House? Initiated endless war, social and political oppression, rounding up dissidents for concentration camps and eventual death?"
"I have to say “probably notâ€, in fact I would say the odds of such horrific things even yet happening to us are more likely under the remaining time that Emperor Barky has in office, he has shown more of a propensity for such behavior, acting NOT in the national interest, than any other elected official I can think of in my lifetime."
I'd say that it's ultimately unnecessary to compare him to said individuals, because he should be graded as a failure during his short time in office and utterly unsuited and unworthy of power on the face of his personal agenda. I'll add as well that I believe he has harbored a personal grudge against the Republicans for their repudiation of his father for President (with George the Terrible getting the booby prize of serving as HUD Secretary until he was effectively run out of that). That hatred actually fueled Al Gore, who also watched his father get similarly shut out of the Presidential track (his father behaved so reprehensibly at the 1956 Dem. National Convention in whoring after the position of VP for the sole purpose of becoming the 1960 heir apparent that the Dems retaliated against him by selecting his seatmate from here in TN, Sen. Estes Kefauver, instead).
For the next 14 years, Senior Gore tried to have it both ways, playing up the worst extremes in our state to hold on to power. He first tried to be the liberal national Democrat, but in 1964 moved to be the most rabid anti-Civil Rights Senator imaginable, filibustering it, and then upon seeing all the "Negroes" participating in Dem primaries, swung hard left to be the peace/dove anti-Vietnam War Senator. He successfully pissed off everyone in the process, almost lost renomination in 1970, and lost the general election, ranting at his twentysomething son that he had wasted 32 years in Washington. The best thing for Junior to have done was stayed away from politics, only to follow in his dad's footsteps 6 years later embarking on his unfortunate career, first pretending to be moderate, eventually becoming a certifiable moonbat. To a degree, it also fueled Dubya Bush as well (and El Jebbe even more so, with clear-cut jealousy that his "dumber" older brother got the office he should've in 2000 had he not been the victim of voter fraud at the hands of Lawton Chiles in 1994).
"I think we can all agree that Romney will NEVER be President, not necessarily due to anyone who opposed him, organized voters against him (after all, he still won the damn nomination in 2012 didn’t he?), but due to his own failures as a candidate and as you pointed out, he didn’t fight hard enough to win, as Donald Trump said “he chokedâ€.
When you have half your party's base opposed (if not viscerally so) to your nominee and the remainder merely "meh" about them, this is a recipe for disaster. It was merely a repeat of McQueeg, only that Johnny boy made a huge mistake by picking Palin. Why ? Because she almost flipped the script and caused him to win. He was not there to win, he was there to lose. He kept showing his hand repeatedly. Remember the "You have nothing to fear from Obama" line ? A real candidate would not have uttered that. I remember seeing former OK Gov. Frank Keating on tv, and he was recounting that as an FBI agent, he was pursuing Zero's political mentors. Keating wouldn't have needed 5 minutes on stage with Zero in destroying him as a candidate and would've made it plain that Zero was such a security risk to America that had he not been elected to high office, he couldn't have gotten employment to get a basic security clearance. Why weren't we running Gov. Keating ? Because Keating would've won and not taken a dive.
And I go back to how the GOP Establishment and Democrats are in bed with one another. Take a close gander at the bipartisan IL Combine, the most corrupt state political entity in the nation. They allow the parties to rotate their officeholders, even fixing the elections for them. When a non-Combiner, Brady, won the 2010 GOP primary for Governor who had overwhelming support with the base, they stole the election from him in the general, despite the fact he won almost every county with the exception of the uber-corrupt Cook County. But the unpopular left-wing RINO Congressman Mark Kirk, whose primary opponents were all scared out of the race by Combiner threats, his election was fixed and secured in November. Unpopular RINO wins, popular Conservative Reformist loses (even as the Republicans sweep a solid majority of Congressional districts). Yeah. This time around, with two Combiners securely "chosen", the Democrat incumbent goes down by designation and the Republican (who is close buddies with Rahm Emanuel) is installed.
This "rotation" may have already been agreed to in DC between the parties. 8 years with the Clintons, 8 years with Dubya (Establishment), 8 years with Zero, and El Jebbe may have been the "agreed upon" choice for 2016 by the establishment, with him all ready to go to enact the liberal agenda beginning with legalizing millions of illegal invaders. The price he pays for power. He wins, we lose. Willard had to be the designated loser for 2012 or it would upset the balance. The closer you look, the more logical this set-up becomes. With Trump, unless he's playing us, he's going to upset the balance and then all bets are off because the rats are all going to start running up on deck (and that's happening now with the mass hysteria we've seen). This game is corrupt, our country is dying, and like that pretty, bleached-blonde doll in "Game of Thrones" said, it's time to bust the wheel.
"As I recall in 2012, many FReepers said (as did I) that while Obama and Romney both would drive America towards that cliff, at least Romney would throttle back to a thrifty 55 mph, while Obama was already running over 100 mph, i.e., “if you can’t stop, at least slow down!â€"
But what got me so angry at others is that they didn't see that this was all a huge set-up, a big game, a fraud, and they had no role to play in determining a legitimate outcome. A rigged wrestling match. Urkel was going to win so long as his pre-chosen opponent stuck to the fix. It didn't matter if Andre the Giant came out if Andre was in on what was happening. Andre would go down. That both McQueeg and Willard knowingly participated in this sham election - twice - both makes them traitors. If you go back to the example of Stalin or Hitler or Mao, the equivalent would've been if Stalin had willingly let Hitler march into the USSR and capture it, or if Hitler had done the same with Germany, or if Mao had settled for allowing Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists to come in with a wink and a nod. They sold us out. No wonder McQueeg got called "The Manchurian Candidate" by those who could see what he was doing.
"Be that as it may, we are in a whole new situation now, the GOPe is losing it’s grip on their rigged political process, the impending failure of Jebuardo Bush is a testament to that, and that is in large part due to Donald Trump who has stripped the bark off the little bastard and his GOPe co-conspirators. And yes, that includes Romney as well."
But just you watch as like with alcoholics trying to "bargain", the party establishment goes down the chain to anyone who can stop the person who will displace them from power. El Jebbe is a no-go, they tried Kay Sick, but that angry creep and pervert is going nowhere, now they'll try Roofio or even Dr. Carson. Carson may be the last ditch-effort. If Trump gets the nod, they will then attempt to "negotiate" with him. If Trump gives in for the sake of peace, we will have been had once again. This establishment is the enemy, and they must be obliterated to the last. They are a cancer that if is not destroyed, it will begin to grow again and metastasize. This cancer spreads from one generation of elected officials to the next. That much power, that much money corrupts even the strongest-willed whom are pledged to change the system.
"My position has always been that we cannot change the past, but we can do all that is possible to change the present and future. I’ve never said or even hinted at somehow resurrecting Romney for a 2016 run, we have superior candidates this election cycle and I believe that despite the GOPe doing all they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, that we as conservatives WILL prevail next year."
We hope.
"What I believe is not constructive at all, is this tendency for some FReepers to engage in endless criticism of the words and actions of others regarding Romney, no one in their right mind truly advocating Romney over other candidates (none that I know of anyway), however many FReepers believed (as did I, as did our Founder) that we could not remain on the sidelines and stay home, or cast a ‘protest’ vote for an obscure candidate that had absolutely no chance of winning, period. How many FReepers did we see in 2008 who said “I’m not voting for McCain, I’m voting for Sarah Palinâ€? Where were these sages of logic then, to correct everyone that if you were voting for Palin, you WERE voting for McCain because he was at the top of the ticket? Like the saying goes, “cricketsâ€."
The argument I made then, as I do now and cited above is that for folks who thought that supporting Willard in the general election that he was going to win, they were going to be in for a surprise. He had to make it look like he was swinging, even though he really wasn't. He wasn't going to deliver a death blow in the debates. I wouldn't be surprised if he even coordinated it with Zero to try to even it out with the first debate and then Zero would "prevail" in the rest. Even the dopes in the audience watching a rigged match don't want it to be that obviously lopsided. Make the saps and suckers think there's a "chance." I said myself after the 2008 debacle, I was done with that game. These characters were traitors and liars and I wasn't going to reward them with my vote. They bring shame to our Founding Fathers who would've supported hanging all of them. I voted for Virgil Goode with a clear conscience, while others voted for our Mr. Hoefling. It had nothing to do with voting for a "winner." If every last one of us expressing disgust had abided by that shameful fix and gone all in for Willard, it would not have changed the outcome.
"The Romney debacle is behind us. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by post mortems and calls for ‘purges’ by the self appointed holiest divine ones among us, no need to name them, they know who they are. (and I emphasize, I am NOT talking about you FMDJ) Thanks again for your comments."
Unfortunately, it is not nearly as behind us as one would like it to be. Given his role in orchestrating the replacement of the Speaker (meet the new boss, same as the old), he's still wielding power in the party. This purge to rid ourselves of that cancer (and that means our elected officials who stand by while this madness continues) may be the only thing that can save us, if our Republic is to be saved. Where's Ben Franklin when you need him ? To him and his contemporaries, we owe them our most sincerest apologies for allowing this disaster to befall their greatest work.
That is simply a superb post. And to start from the end, when I spoke of purges, I was speaking of those right here on FR who have either said openly, or have hinted that there are FReepers that need to be purged, and my position is that any purging that takes place needs to be conducted by our Founder, it’s his house, and we’re all guests in it as I’m sure you’ll agree. He determines who stays, and who goes.
After doing some basic arithmetic this morning while waking up, I will just say that for a 41 year old pup like you (I’m quite frankly old enough to be your father, lol), you are pretty damn smart, you have absorbed and retained a massive amount of historical data, and more importantly you appear to fully understand and comprehend the meaning of that data, my hat is off to you FMDJ.
Nicely done.
I’m not convinced that Romney isn’t going to re-enter the race.
Do you all remember in late 2014 that Team Romney was giving it a serious look? He met with Jeb in January 2015, in Salt Lake City, and right after announced that he was out, the alleged reason being that Jeb had locked up all the $$?
I don’t think Rubio is going anywhere (but I’m usually wrong). If Rubio doesn’t show potential soon, there will be pressure from the GOPe on Romney to “save the party”.
One thing unmentioned (in this thread, at least) regarding our dear Cap’n McQueeg is that in 2004, he gave serious consideration to dispensing with the claim he was ever a Republican and joining with his good buddy Liveshot Jean-François as his running mate. The only difficulty in doing that is a sudden party switch for the purposes of running for #2 might run afoul of party bylaws and could’ve caused a party split with the extremist moonbat base (though more pragmatic members might’ve seen this as a potential boost to sacking Dubya after a single term).
Of course, had he done that (and lost with Jean-François), he would’ve been out his Senate seat (which was up in 2004) and would never have been able to run credibly for President as a Democrat. That would’ve, of course, cleared it for Willard in 2008, so we would’ve been saddled with the same problem as before.
Also, Palin was not McCain’s first choice for VP. As with what he almost did in 2004, McCain wanted to run with Joe Lieberman (who had been de facto booted from the Democrats with his primary loss). Even the Establishment folks had to explain to McQueeg that wasn’t going to fly (and aside from Joe’s sanity on Israel/War on Terror issues, his voting record was execrable, with almost perfect ultraleft scores).
The nutter that defeated Lieberman in the 2006 primary, Ned Lamont, was a bonafide Communist (albeit one of those rich privileged businessmen) whose great-uncle was the infamous Corliss Lamont, a Stalinist & Castroite who never “formally” joined the U.S. Communist Party (plausible deniability, you know how that goes). This guy had impeccable RED credentials. That the Dems would purge Lieberman for not being a 100% barking moonbat and traitor should tell you where they’re at (and yet the GOP Establishment is snuggling right up against them in bed).
I myself did say the same thing about voting for Palin and not for McQueeg. She didn’t realize the ticket wasn’t supposed to win, and that’s why you saw the full on assault from McQueeg and Willard’s people knifing her in the back every which way and allowing the media to destroy her and her family with their blessing. She was utterly muzzled and hog-tied as well because she wasn’t at liberty to run independently of the ticket.
BTW, I’ll add this, too... This wasn’t some secret deal exclusively between McQueeg and Zero. If Hillary had received the nomination, McQueeg was still set to take the dive. That fix was in.
Sadly, had by some chance McQueeg won with Palin, she would’ve been forced to defend the regime and it would’ve harmed her seriously with the Conservative base (short of her pulling a John C. Calhoun during Andrew Jackson’s 1st term and exiting the VP office early to run for the Senate to serve in opposition to him).
I think she ultimately chose not to run in 2012 because she didn’t want her family gang-raped by the same cast of characters in 2008, but also by the same Republican establishment people responsible for the worst of it. She may yet end up as a Cabinet officer under Trump (Interior, although it would be more fun to see her at State and watch the heads explode at Foggy Bottom !).
There is that valid concern. But he is so tainted with the party base, and the fact that Trump can squash him like a bug that he wouldn’t waste his time. If he did enter, it would be solely to assure Hillary’s safe victory in 2016 (only that would violate the GOP-E/Democrat agreement, of 8 years on/off, although I imagine if an outsider attempts to take the nod, it will be allowed for the Dems to go for 12 years).
Thank you. I think I've set a record for LONG posts written today. I did an essay on Illinois's 2nd House district in the Gus Savage obit thread.
"And to start from the end, when I spoke of purges, I was speaking of those right here on FR who have either said openly, or have hinted that there are FReepers that need to be purged, and my position is that any purging that takes place needs to be conducted by our Founder, it’s his house, and we’re all guests in it as I’m sure you’ll agree. He determines who stays, and who goes."
It has always been JimRob's call. Unfortunately, I think he erred in the runup to the 2008 primary when he decided to sack the Giuliani people. Although I have my problems with him on policy, he did demonstrably leave NYC in better shape on his watch, making an ungovernable city with an epic level massacre murder rate (over 2k per year under Dinkins) and lowered it to levels unimaginable in the modern era. Only now under the current horrific Marxist/Sandinista Mayor is the evil starting to return.
In contrast to Willard, Giuliani wasn't attempting to toss out his positions and claim to be a born-again Conservative. Basically, he was trying to be intellectually honest. Where he ran into a serious problem from a practical and logical standpoint is that he said he was going to appoint Conservatives to his administration. Now how is that a problem ? Let's say you lean one direction, would you then fill up your staff with people that generally believe opposite to you on a host of issues ? He may have been sincere about it, but it would have been a very schizo regime.
In Rudy's defense, I will say one thing: I would find it hard that he would've gone along with the GOP-E/Dem agreement/collusion I cited above. If he had run and been the nominee, he was running to win. I think it would've offended him to his core if he was told he needed to take a dive. The race thing wouldn't have mattered to him. He had to battle a dangerously incompetent buffoon in David Dinkins, first losing in 1989, and then prevailing in a rematch in 1993 (he didn't care about looking "racist" in front of effete liberal snobs for daring to defeat a guy who was content to sit on those aforementioned epic-level murders and other mayhem going on). The party establishment never seemed all that hot about his candidacy, anyhow. I supported Fred Thompson, as many FReepers did, but he never went anywhere.
Getting back to what I was saying above, I urged JimRob to purge the Willardbots en masse, rather than the Giuliani supporters. I said the former would rip this website apart, and very nearly did. That was the single ugliest period this website ever saw (from 2007 to early 2013). The Willardbot Wars. I felt like I was on here 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, combating their lies and propaganda. I've probably written more posts where his name has come into play than about anyone else or any other subject. It was all done for the purposes of warning people as to ultimately what he did in 2012.
"After doing some basic arithmetic this morning while waking up, I will just say that for a 41 year old pup like you (I’m quite frankly old enough to be your father, lol), you are pretty damn smart, you have absorbed and retained a massive amount of historical data, and more importantly you appear to fully understand and comprehend the meaning of that data, my hat is off to you FMDJ. Nicely done."
Thank you. Yes, though probably done to the exclusion of most everything else. I will concede I don't know jack-squat about sports, for example, or the craziness behind sports fanatics. I wish they'd show as much passion for their country as they do for their teams, though.
More astute observations. Here is a question regarding this ‘collusion’ conspiracy, the evidence you have cited is convincing, however it falls into the category of (for example) the government official ‘silence’ regarding UFO’s, i.e., regardless of the official denials, there has been a massive amount of irrefutable evidence that has been presented which establishes beyond doubt that ‘something’ has been visiting and interacting with us here on planet Earth. Information has leaked and continues to leak.
In that same vein, why have we not seen or heard SOMEone, anyone, come forward to announce to our Nation that our hallowed election process is nothing but (as you aptly described it) a pre-arranged, fixed wrestling match?
I can’t believe that EVERYONE has agreed to be on board with such a corruption of the political system. How could they insure silence? Is this a case of the ‘on the surface’ public government being run and controlled by the behind the scenes ‘shadow’ government?
If what you say is true (and I’m not dismissing it at this point), there is going to be a monstrous collision and explosion between Trump and the powers that be, over and above what we’ve already seen.
Yes you did and you were eloquent -- you still are. THANK YOU. I for one am indebted to you; you are among a handful of good thinkers here who have helped me make smarter more moral better choices in how I vote.
Well stated. Again, thank you and God bless you and yours, stalwart patriot.
If you could vote for Willard the spoiled privileged baby-killing barbarian on the "GOP" ticket, then you should have had no problem getting Charlie out of the hoosegow and into the White House as well so long as he ran as a "GOP" candidate.
But, but, Willard lost a second cousin to an illegal botched abortion after which she bled out in her dorm room at Eastern Michigan State (?). Doesn't THAT justify voting for Willard and 60 million slaughtered babies later be damned because the one and only priority was to get his ideological twin in blackface out of the White House?
I remember an earlier time when Democrats and even Republicans ran somewhat civilized candidates who did not arrange baby-killing and were not obsessed with Muffie's potential "need" to kill her offspring to save the family reputation and were not trying to establish tax deductible "marriages" to solemnize and tax subsidize the entry of son Lance's peter into the forbidden zone of Bruce's used food chute.
Those dear dead days will not return when we encourage the sorry likes of Willard the barbarian by voting for the sick SOB nominated by Wall Street, K Street and $$$$$$ almighty.
Why don’t you just take it a step further and state without equivocation that Romney is the Antichrist? The living manifestation of Satan himself?
Of course, it must be, you have equated him with every genocidal killer in history, with Charlie Manson in recent history, your words and actions testify to the fact that you consider Romney even more of a threat to our Nation than Obama himself. Romney kills little kittens in microwaves, he has a private altar to the demonic idol ‘Baal’, and his head turns counterclockwise every full moon, and pit bulls in every cemetery howl in anger whenever he passes by, and he will build the New Temple in Jerusalem, desolate it with Mormon-approved bacon and pork products, defile the Holy of Holies, and do battle with Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords at the Battle of Armageddon. All creatures great and small shall bear the number or letters of his name upon their hand or forehead, and he will be cast into the Lake of Fire on the Day of the Great White Throne Judgment.
We get it: you hate Romney.
Fer God’s sake, think about the decaf, ok?
I can’t speak about UFOs, though I can imagine that the excuse given for not definitively confirming their existence goes to public safety. The government would obviously think that all hell would break loose if they said, “Sure, they exist. We’ve seen ‘em.” Of course, our biggest problem with the government today is that they treat everyone like children, rather than grown ups. Everything has to be done for everyone, they can’t do it themselves. Government won’t let you have control of your paycheck. That’s why fundamental change is going to have to occur if we’re going to take back control.
I’m also sure there’s a substantial number of people that believe voting is a fruitless exercise. The media and the chattering classes, of course, would dismiss any “nutter” who dares suggest mass-scale political collusion. It was George Carlin who put it best about “bipartisanship” being a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. It was funny when you first heard it years ago and bitterly cynical, but I think there’s considerable truth to it.
And, yes, if Trump is serious about what he says and taking on this establishment (which we hope), there’s going to be a huge “collision” between them. I would expect to see the Democrats and their GOP Establishment allies making common cause to destroy him as President (well, I don’t need to make that prediction, as we’ve witnessed it from the moment he floated his name for the office).
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.