Romney Speech

[sniper7]

And for the love of the Grammar-Gods, can we please correct the title of the thread? It's "speech" not "speach"

leave him alone, he has a speach impediment.

[Byte Stryke]

leave him alone, he has a speach impediment.

speach impedalment

[Irving]

So I guess I'm the delusional one this is aimed at?

Not just cowardly, totalitarian. They didn't like the influence he was having on their party and so they literally threw him out. He wants to shrink the corporatist federal government which would hurt the mainstream Republican Party, so they cast him aside, changed the rules of the game, cheated, whatever you want to call it.

First, I don't think he was talking to you.
Second, I think the Republicans did what they did to prevent another Ross Perot situation.

[Teufelhund]

First, I don't think he was talking to you.
Second, I think the Republicans did what they did to prevent another Ross Perot situation.

What situation is that? Where the people dare to vote outside party lines in order to elect the best person for the job?

[Irving]

What situation is that? Where the people dare to vote outside party lines in order to elect the best person for the job?

Yeah, the situation where 19% of people voted for Ross Perot, and 81% of the people voted wrong.

[tmckay2]

first, when did i ever say i love the republican party? i actually hate the republican party. they are as corrupt as democrats, but they are slightly less bad because they at least have slightly less liberal views.

second, just because i didn't mention bush (since he really has nothing to do with this discussion) doesn't mean i in any way supported what he did. he was the most liberal republican president in quite some time. just so i am sure i understand your central thesis here, obama isn't so bad because bush was bad? ok...

that being said, if you don't think that obama is actively trying to morph this country into something different, you aren't paying attention. and if you really think liberals are going to rally to vote for ron paul, you are very much delusional. if ron paul runs and you vote for him, pm me your address, ill send you a thank you card when obama is re-elected. its a simple game of numbers. yes, i don't like romney much. yes, i don't like the republican party or their antics. yes, we need a third party, or better yet, several parties. no, this is not the time to split the republican vote and give obama another term.

i pretty much live in academia and the health care field, pretty solid breeding grounds for liberals. my wife is a teacher, also lots of liberals. sadly the majority of my friends are liberals, we are proof opposing political parties can get along. in all the circles i live in i have never, ever heard a liberal even remotely support ron paul. most of them mock him as much if not more than romney, which is impressive. others have joked they want him to get the nomination because it will be an easy win for obama. whether true or not i don't know. i watch a fair amount of news and use several social networking sites often and again have never seen democrats or liberals supporting ron paul. a few facebook groups have a few thousand likes that are liberals or democrats for ron paul, although ironically one has a few thousand and is basically saying they want him to get the nomination so obama has an easy win. a few thousand is peanuts. obama has over 30,000 likes from a colorado group alone.

you can't dispute that a third party or republican division this year means a win for obama. its irrefutable. now you may value "taking a stand" and having obama win over having a slightly less evil win, and if thats the case, fine, just say so. but if you think obama is pretty freaking bad and romney wouldn't be quite as bad, then i question why in the world you would vote for someone you know can't win and will only give the victory to obama. its not a matter of virtue, its a matter of being rational about how things are going to play out. i think a "third party" would actually have a legitimate shot at usurping romney in the next four years and beating him in the primaries. it may be unprecendented, but i think it can happen. that option is not organized well enough to be done this year and obama is too powerful of an adversary. i don't know who they will have run next election, but i can't imagine democrats will be able to come up with another person that can rival obama's ability to blind people into voting for him despite everything he stands for and what little he has done. if they get hillary to run next election and we have mittens in office, especially with fairly poor turn around numbers, a third option could be very viable. right now its a guaranteed win for democrats. why anyone would be for that is beyond me, republican hate or not.

So I guess I'm the delusional one this is aimed at?

Completely false. Look at all the liberal groups on Facebook supporting Ron Paul. A simple google search for "democrats for ron paul" (in quotes so it searches for that exact phrase) yields 98,000 hits and a similar search for "liberals for ron paul yields thousands more. There are literally thousands of youtube videos of liberals, democrats, and former Obama supporters who support Ron Paul

This is somewhat true, but the real problem lies in corporatism and a government that has the power to expand itself.

Again, not true.

I believe this has already been discussed to death in the legislation/politics forum.

Which is why Ron Paul has clearly stated multiple times that he will not run as a third party candidate.

Not just cowardly, totalitarian. They didn't like the influence he was having on their party and so they literally threw him out. He wants to shrink the corporatist federal government which would hurt the mainstream Republican Party, so they cast him aside, changed the rules of the game, cheated, whatever you want to call it.


Systematically change the country for the worse? Like President Bush and your beloved Republican Party did? Patriot Act? Creation of the TSA and many other ridiculous governmental organizations with unlimited reach and power? Bush more than doubled Clinton's federal spending. Bush signed an almost unprecedented number of executive orders. The War Powers Resolution was ignored by Reagan and Bush before Obama. Bush deserves a legitimate portion of the blame for the current economic problems, but he just opened up the doors for Obama to make it worse. Bush also kickstarted the overbearing government growth that we are fighting right now.

You say that Obama's administration is doing so much harm to our liberty, but you ignore the damage done by Bush's administration.




ETA: I'm heading to a wedding now, so I'll have to catch up after the weekend. Please don't let this stop you from posting a thoughtful rebuttle with legitimate and reasonable points.

[Teufelhund]

Yeah, the situation where 19% of people voted for Ross Perot, and 81% of the people voted wrong.

LMAO that's great. Well played, sir.

[JoeT]

Yeah, the situation where 19% of people voted for Ross Perot, and 81% of the people voted wrong.

I was one of the 19% (as was my brothers, mom and dad). However they are liberal dems

[Great-Kazoo]

if you don't think that obama is actively trying to morph this country into something different, you aren't paying attention.


I've said it many times and you are repeating what will happen within the next 4 years. Remember he doesn;t condier himself an American and feels we should all join hands AND ECONOMY (EU notes, Chinese , whatever) the next dominant currency will be. He want's us to be on the same page socio-economic wise with the rest of the world.
G$%^D America, that's what he was ingrained with, that's what is is doing. Hell i wonder how brain washed his children are.

[HoneyBadger]

first, ..... I didn't actually read what you said, so I'm going to accuse you of the same things....

I was hoping you would post a thoughtful rebuttal, but it seems you just parroted the same thing about Ron Paul running as a third party candidate and effectively reelecting Obama. As I have already said, multiple times now, Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate. How many more times do I need to say it? What party would he run under? The Ron Paul party? The Libertarian Party already has Gary Johnson, but that is beside the point. Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate. If I somehow turn out to be wrong, I will eat my humble pie and apologize.

I didn't make a thesis, but if you'd like one, then here it is: the majority of your original points are invalid because they are simply not true.

Obama has a Facebook page with 30k likes

whoop de do. I was talking about people crossing the party lines. Besides, when 70% of Obama's Twitter followers are imaginary, it's foolish to trust that his facebook followers aren't.

After 4 years in Colorado, the military moved me to California. I just returned to Colorado this past April and from San Francisco to Los Angeles, there are many thousands of California liberals and democrats who support Ron Paul. This is the evidence I saw with my own eyes. If you have better primary source evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, then please be willing to accept that your world is not the entire real world and that outside of your world, many liberal Ron Paul supporters exist.

I absolutely do think that Obama is "trying to morph this country into something different," and I disapprove of it as much as anyone else here, but my point in bringing up President Bush's actions demonstrates that the Republican Party as it stands today is capable of inflicting just as much harm. Furthermore, their disgraceful actions at the RNC ostracizing Ron Paul clearly showed that they do not want to incorporate his ideas and his principled ways into the party, thereby splitting their own vote and clearly demonstrating that they are not just capable of the same level of harm that liberals have been inflicting on america, but also fully willing to continue on that path.

Irrefutable? You know what else is irrefutable? Global warming. Keyenesian economics. Evolution. Point being: nothing is irrefutable.

You say it's "not a matter of virtue, it's a matter of being rational". Reason is by nature virtuous.