Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: slingshot on January 11, 2012, 01:02:14 PM
-
What exactly is his record with regard to Gun Control in MA? Since he won both Iowa and NH primaries on the Republican side, this issue needs to be brought up. He claims that he supports the 2nd Amendment.
How much was he involved in the MA Foid card requirement? So called "assault weapons" requirements?
Newt Gingrich said something to the effect that Romney was behind a $100 per gun ownership fee in MA. Is this true or is the amount incorrect? I believe the FOID card is $50. Is there an annual fee?
Has he ever worked to reduce gun laws in MA as govenor?
-
Found This, take it for what it is worth. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/02/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-accuses-mitt-romney-flip-flopping-gun/)
-
Wow! He is absolutely, positively, a complete chameleon on everything.
-
Wow! He is absolutely, positively, a complete chameleon on everything.
Well maybe he talked to Kerry too many times.
-
A bill he signed in 2004 enacted a permanent ban on assault weapons -- reportedly the first such state law in the country. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," the Globe quoted Romney as saying. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Well, there you go ... =(
-
I think Mitt Romney is purposely not saying anything substantive about his positions on gun control during the campaign so far. Yes, it is one of his weaknesses and a negative for many Americans. I don't want to have to hold my nose when I vote again for president.
He says he wants to enforce the laws that are on the books. That is not good enough for me. That is a standard evasive politican statement. Would he support a national FOID card? Would he support a national registry? Would he support charging firearm owners an annual fee to own a firearm to pay for a registry? Does he support a national waiting period when he knows it has little effect on crime?
Does he feel it is a state's issue? He has already said he supported MA gun laws which are some of the toughest in the country. What does he really believe? Would he support new legislation that is more restrctive relative to gun control? Or is he the gutless politician that changes his views to fit a campaign and essentially has no core values?
Does he just want to WIN? That pretty much sums up our President also. I have so many questions and few answers.
-
I have so many questions and few answers. That pretty much sums up our President also.
FIFY
-
I don't want to have to hold my nose again when I vote again for president.
FTFY
-
I think Mitt Romney is purposely not saying anything substantive about his positions on gun control during the campaign so far. Yes, it is one of his weaknesses and a negative for many Americans. I don't want to have to hold my nose when I vote again for president.
He says he wants to enforce the laws that are on the books. That is not good enough for me. That is a standard evasive politican statement. Would he support a national FOID card? Would he support a national registry? Would he support charging firearm owners an annual fee to own a firearm to pay for a registry? Does he support a national waiting period when he knows it has little effect on crime?
Does he feel it is a state's issue? He has already said he supported MA gun laws which are some of the toughest in the country. What does he really believe? Would he support new legislation that is more restrctive relative to gun control? Or is he the gutless politician that changes his views to fit a campaign and essentially has no core values?
Does he just want to WIN? That pretty much sums up our President also. I have so many questions and few answers.
Meh... Bolded above is exactly it. And that means...
I'd bet my current stash in the gun-fund (roughly $900) that he'll be mostly status-quo on guns and RKBA. He'll be no worse than Bush II was. ATF gets cleaned up a bit, not dramatically, as we'd actually like to see, but the worst of it like Gunwalker goes away. No major EO's on imports etc.
He's enough of a "finger in the wind" type that I sincerely doubt we'd see anything outrageous from him in regards to guns, and go against the largely pro-RKBA national trend that's gone on since the '94 watershed.
Seeing as even Reagan and Bush I gave us lousy SCOTUS pics, Mitt is no guarantee either, but IMO, you can guarantee that Obama would pick a bunch more "Wise Latinas" and Janet Reno/Napolitano/Kagan looking short haired... er.. things to take the bench.
The pros and cons of all this really has me on the bleeding knife-edge between holding my nose, and voting for Mitt, and then going home to cry in the shower while scrubbing till I'm raw and the hot water runs out, and an actual protest vote.
In my darker moods, I'm more pragmatic. I'm simply thinking "Who will give me and my kids more time to prepare?" and "Who will be most likely to leave me armed for when it all goes to hell?".
-
The pros and cons of all this really has me on the bleeding knife-edge between holding my nose, and voting for Mitt, and then going home to cry in the shower while scrubbing till I'm raw and the hot water runs out, and an actual protest vote.
Given a choice between Obama and Romney, I might could vote for Gary Johnson...
In the primary I'm gonna vote for Ron Paul, if it harelips everybody on Bear Creek. (or even if it doesn't)
-
I've heard campaign speech sound bites from Romney that go both ways depending on who he was talking to.
At lunch, Rush was talking about a couple of OpEd pieces that seem to have suddenly realized that "Hey, can we really count on Republican voters to actually get out and vote for Romney?" Where have they been? [See McCain '08]
-
I have a pair of flip-flops I wear to the pool. I think that I should name the left one Obama and the other Romney.
-
Has he ever worked to reduce gun laws in MA as govenor?
At a gun show back in 2008, when I was manning the Ron Paul booth, we took at the flyer the Romney booth had out.
He took credit for loosening some restrictions on muzzle loaders. Wooo!
-
"Hey, can we really count on Republican voters to actually get out and vote for Romney?" Where have they been? [See McCain '08]
He is probably going to have to depend on his vice presidental choice like McCain.
If he wants people to get excited about his candidacy, he is going to have to support something like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Romney is a very ho hum kind of guy politically.
-
I will go out on a limb and say Romney is NOT a flip-flopper. In fact I believe most flip-floppers are not flip-floppers. If you want to know where he stands, go to his first opinions on the subject. Everything else is just vote hunting. Certainly some people will legitimately flip-flop on an issue, but usually after some life-changing experience. In the political realm of firearms, look at Carolyn McCarthy and Suzanna Hupp (one could argue they really didn't flip-flop, just became much more focused on the pro or anti-2nd side). Romney has had no epiphany moment that I know of to make him firearms friendly.
If Romney is elected, don't think for a second that he wouldn't rush to sign renewal of the AWB, or a national waiting period on firearms purchases if either were presented to him. Especially if, God forbid, he was in a lame duck second term.
-
He's a professional politician. He is not going to take a stand where he doesn't have to. Say what people want to hear and avoid stepping in political poo, whatever it takes to get elected/re-elected.
The founding fathers were business men, leaders with a vision that formed a new government and then went back to their lives after giving service to the new country for a limited time.
I detest professional politicians.
-
.........If Romney is elected, don't think for a second that he wouldn't rush to sign renewal of the AWB, or a national waiting period on firearms purchases if either were presented to him. Especially if, God forbid, he was in a lame duck second term.
I agree. A real question is how desirous the kongress will be for a new AWB or other antigun legislation. A number of them still recall how the 1994 ban came back and hurt them the next voting day.
-
His being governor of Assachussetts is reason enough not to vote for him.
-
His being governor of Assachussetts is reason enough not to vote for him.
I understand, but what if he is the republican candidate in November? I don't like his background with respect to firearms rights, but I am unwilling to stand by and do nothing while Obama is reelected.
I had the same conundrum with Bush/Gore in 2000. Shrubbie promised to re authorize the AWB. :facepalm: [barf] But Gore was --IMHO -- so much worse overall I held my breath and voted for Shrubbie.
Sadly, I think it's going to be somewhat the same these twelve years later.
It has been a long time since I was able to enthusiastically support any candidate................ :'(
-
I understand, but what if he is the republican candidate in November? I don't like his background with respect to firearms rights, but I am unwilling to stand by and do nothing while Obama is reelected.
I had the same conundrum with Bush/Gore in 2000. Shrubbie promised to re authorize the AWB. :facepalm: [barf] But Gore was --IMHO -- so much worse overall I held my breath and voted for Shrubbie.
Sadly, I think it's going to be somewhat the same these twelve years later.
It has been a long time since I was able to enthusiastically support any candidate................ :'(
I did the same thing and felt the same way during Bush term two, but find I can't bring myself to do it this time. Looking at overall stances and averaging out pluses and minuses, I see nothing about Romney that is better than Obama. Choosing someone that boils the water slightly slower is no longer an option for me.
I'll be voting for Ron Paul as the Republican candidate, or as an Independent candidate, or writing him in.
-
The founding fathers were business men, leaders with a vision that formed a new government and then went back to their lives after giving service to the new country for a limited time.
Actually, no. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and many others could be described as career politicians.
-
Actually, no. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and many others could be described as career politicians.
Ummmm... what? Washington could be described as a career politician?
-
At a gun show back in 2008, when I was manning the Ron Paul booth, we took at the flyer the Romney booth had out.
He took credit for loosening some restrictions on muzzle loaders. Wooo!
Was the slogan
"You musket out and vote for Romney"?
*gets coat*
-
Was the slogan
"You musket out and vote for Romney"?
*gets coat*
You got a lot of balls to post that :lol:
-
Was the slogan
"You musket out and vote for Romney"?
*gets coat*
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for coming down to see our little performance tonight.
agricola will be doing another show tonight, 2 on Saturday and 1 on Sunday.
Please save you rotten tomatoes until the end of his performance.
-
You got a lot of balls to post that :lol:
Minnie balls.
-
Minnie balls.
Sorry to hear that
-
Minnie balls.
I don't think Minnie was the one with the balls. I believe that was Mickey.
-
I don't think Minnie was the one with the balls. I believe that was Mickey.
Did Minnie have the powder ?
-
I don't think Minnie was the one with the balls. I believe that was Mickey.
Not if you've heard him speak.....remember, Goofy is the one with the big nose.... ;)
-
And Mickey wanted a divorce from Minnie because she was F@%*ing Goofy.
-
:facepalm: Good grief. There must be something in APS's water........................ ;/ [tinfoil]
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama. That is priority one. After that, who Romney becomes in office, is up to US. He's obviously not ideal on gun rights, but he can be pressured, and that must be a strong political priority for us come 2013.
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama. That is priority one. After that, who Romney becomes in office, is up to US. He's obviously not ideal on gun rights, but he can be pressured, and that must be a strong political priority for us come 2013.
Well the we want to get Obama out of the White House for sure. But the biggest key is to get a larger majority in the House and take over the Senate with a super majority with the right type of people. Then they can force Romney, or whoever is in that spot, to come to the light.
And even if Obama were to win his second term if the Dems lose seats in both Houses things will deadlock.
Edited to clear up fat fingers on the insert key. :facepalm:
-
And even if Obama were to win his second term if the Dems lose seats in both Houses things will deadlock.
You can't count on deadlock though, when you have czars. Just look at all the crap the EPA is getting done that doesn't require legislative approval.
-
You can't count on deadlock though, when you have czars. Just look at all the crap the EPA is getting done that doesn't require legislative approval.
And that is precisely the problem with the political debate. The opposition party (aka republicans) has said nothing about rollback of legislation enabling the creation of a police state. EPA gone Wild is merely one example which Joe and Martha Sixpack recognize. The provision in law used by EPA to label CO two a hazardous substance laid quietly in legislation for 35+ years before an amenable administration activated it.
Obamacare is the same. Romney said he will repeal it (what ever that means). Meanwhile he continues to defend his creation of Obamacare's pappa. Most disturbing to me is his fence straddling saying it was good for MA and bad for USA. No mention of constitutional restrictions on state force. We can defund 'til the cows come home and the framework will still lurk in the governmental weeds until a Jimmuh Carter V3.0 should surface. This election is yet another example of how the political ratchet tightens only in one direction.
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama.
Not if the conservatives and TEA Party voters don't vote for him, he won't.
Well the we wamt tp get Obama out of the White House for sure. But the biggest key is to get a larger majority in the House and take over the Senate with a super majority with the right type of people then they can force Romney, or whoever is in that spot, to come to the light.
This might be our only hope.... =|
-
I'll caucus here in NV for Ron Paul but its so corrupt here anyone with any sense knows that Romney already has NV in the bag.
RP won here last time but the folks in charge of the republicrats here wouldn't hear of it.
Sharon Angle also won against Reid but the fix was in.
I will vote for whomever is the R candidate, which will probably be Romney ... under Obama I cant even afford to buy a gun, never mind ammo.
Romney wont be perfect but at least we might have some breathing room to prepare for the coming apocalypse
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama. That is priority one. After that, who Romney becomes in office, is up to US. He's obviously not ideal on gun rights, but he can be pressured, and that must be a strong political priority for us come 2013.
Reality: Anybody can oust Obama. Certainly Romney and Ron Paul can do it. The election will be decided on a razor-thin edge of 2-3%. Voter enthusiasm and turnout will be key. Should Romney win, the conservative/libertarian movement known as the Tea Party will be reduced to the political wilderness for years to come.
There's nothing that Obama can do to America in 4 years than future freedom-loving Presidents and Congresses won't be able to undo.
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama.
At least that is what the GOP establishment, John McCain and the main stream media are telling us.
-
There's nothing that Obama can do to America in 4 years than future freedom-loving Presidents and Congresses won't be able to undo.
Not in my lifetime.
-
Reality: Romney is the guy who can oust Obama. That is priority one.
And so could just about anyone with a pulse that can string together simple sentences.
-
There's nothing that Obama can do to America in 4 years than future freedom-loving Presidents and Congresses won't be able to undo.
If you can find any..... ;/
-
If you can find any..... ;/
Exactly.
-
And so could just about anyone with a pulse that can string together simple sentences.
Hopefully they can do it without the aid of a teleprompter all the time.
-
If you can find any..... ;/
Allowing ourselves to be force fed Romney for expediency will make freedom loving politicians that much harder to find.
I'm actually of the mind that the long term damage of letting the GOP think it's OK to produce candidates like him might be worse for American politics then another Obama term. I don't think we should allow the Republicans to continue to pretend that they offer an actual opposition party, rather then a slightly different statism.
-
Allowing ourselves to be force fed Romney for expediency will make freedom loving politicians that much harder to find.
I'm actually of the mind that the long term damage of letting the GOP think it's OK to produce candidates like him might be worse for American politics then another Obama term. I don't think we should allow the Republicans to continue to pretend that they offer an actual opposition party, rather then a slightly different statism.
+ 1,000,000,000
-
Don't construe my pragmatic support for a Romney candidacy as an endorsement of the GOP. I think we all know the GOP establishment, as it is, is a fail. Romney, for me, represents the last best hope to use the current political process to save what's left of Constitutional governance in America. I am skeptical that the other GOP candidates can really beat Obama given the state of this political culture, but Romney is not cure-all and everyone here knows that. For those who don't like the notions of secession and/or civil war, he offers, if nothing else, some time.
And this:
Lord Macaulay on American Institutions and Prospects, 1860
From the Southern Literary Messenger. | Published: March 24, 1860 [Emphasis added]
Dear Sir:
You are surprised to learn that I have not a high opinion of Mr. JEFFERSON, and I am surprised at your surprise. I am certain that I never wrote a line, and that I never, in Parliament, in conversation, or even on the hustings -- a place where it is the fashion to court the populace -- uttered a word indicating an opinion that the supreme authority in a State ought to be intrusted to the majority of citizens told by the head; in other words, to the poorest and most ignorant part of society. I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilization, or both.
In Europe, where the population is dense, the effect of such institutions would be almost instantaneous. What happened lately in France is an example. In 1848 a pure Democracy was established there. During a short time there was reason to expect a general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation laid on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness. Such a system would, in twenty years, have made France as poor and barbarous as France of the Carlovingians. Happily the danger was averted; and now there is a despotism, a silent tribune, an enslaved Press. Liberty is gone; but civilization has been saved. I have not the smallest doubt that, if we had a purely Democratic Government here, the effect would be the same. Either the poor would plunder the rich, and civilization would perish; or order and property would be saved by a strong military government, and Liberty would perish.
You may think that your country enjoys an exemption from these evils. I will frankly own to you that I am of a very different opinion.
Your fate I believe to be certain, though it is deferred by a physical cause. As long as you have a boundless extent of fertile and unoccupied land, your laboring population will be far more at ease than the laboring population of the old world; and, while that is the case, the Jeffersonian policy may continue to exist without causing any fatal calamity. But the time will come when New-England will be as thickly peopled as Old England. Wages will be as low, and will fluctuate as much with you as with us. You will have your Manchesters and Birminghams; and, in those Manchesters and Birminghams, hundreds of thousands of artisans will assuredly be sometimes out of work. Then your institutions will be fairly brought to the test.
Distress everywhere makes the laborer mutinous and discontented, and inclines him to listen with eagerness to agitators who tell him that it is a monstrous iniquity that one man should have a million while another cannot get a full meal. In bad years there is plenty of grumbling here, and sometimes a little rioting. But it matters little. For here the sufferers are not the rulers. The supreme power is in the hands of a class, numerous indeed, but select, of an educated class, of a class which is, and knows itself to be, deeply interested in the security of property and the maintenance of order. Accordingly, the malcontents are firmly, yet gently, restrained. The bad time is got over without robbing the wealthy to relieve the indigent. The springs of national prosperity soon begin to flow again; work is plentiful; wages rise, and all is tranquillity and cheerfulness.
I have seen England pass three or four times through such critical seasons as I have described. Through such seasons the United States will have to pass, in the course of the next century, if not of this. How will you pass through them? I heartily wish you a good deliverance. But my reason and my wishes are at war, and I cannot help foreboding the worst.
It is quite plain that your Government will never be able to restrain a distressed and discontented majority. For with you the majority is the Government, and has the rich, who are always a minority, absolutely at its mercy.
The day will come when, in the State of New-York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast, or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of Legislature will be chosen?
On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread?
I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people would, in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed-corn, and thus make the next year, a year not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stay you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.
As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals, who ravaged the Roman Empire, came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your country by your own institutions.
I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, T.B. MACAULAY.
Source: MACAULAY ON DEMOCRACY. - Curious Letter from Lord Macaulay on American Institutions and Prospects. - Article - NYTimes.com
-
Now, that Lord Macaulay .... did he have a crystal ball....or was he a time traveler ......
where did he get his smarts?
:angel:
-
Don't construe my pragmatic support for a Romney candidacy as an endorsement of the GOP. I think we all know the GOP establishment, as it is, is a fail. Romney, for me, represents the last best hope to use the current political process to save what's left of Constitutional governance in America. I am skeptical that the other GOP can really beat Obama given the state of this political culture, but Romney is not cure-all and everyone here knows that. For those who don't like the notions of secession and/or civil war, he offers, if nothing else, some time.
And this:
Lord Macaulay on American Institutions and Prospects, 1860
From the Southern Literary Messenger. | Published: March 24, 1860 [Emphasis added]
Dear Sir:
You are surprised to learn that I have not a high opinion of Mr. JEFFERSON, and I am surprised at your surprise. I am certain that I never wrote a line, and that I never, in Parliament, in conversation, or even on the hustings -- a place where it is the fashion to court the populace -- uttered a word indicating an opinion that the supreme authority in a State ought to be intrusted to the majority of citizens told by the head; in other words, to the poorest and most ignorant part of society. I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilization, or both.
In Europe, where the population is dense, the effect of such institutions would be almost instantaneous. What happened lately in France is an example. In 1848 a pure Democracy was established there. During a short time there was reason to expect a general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation laid on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness. Such a system would, in twenty years, have made France as poor and barbarous as France of the Carlovingians. Happily the danger was averted; and now there is a despotism, a silent tribune, an enslaved Press. Liberty is gone; but civilization has been saved. I have not the smallest doubt that, if we had a purely Democratic Government here, the effect would be the same. Either the poor would plunder the rich, and civilization would perish; or order and property would be saved by a strong military government, and Liberty would perish.
You may think that your country enjoys an exemption from these evils. I will frankly own to you that I am of a very different opinion.
Your fate I believe to be certain, though it is deferred by a physical cause. As long as you have a boundless extent of fertile and unoccupied land, your laboring population will be far more at ease than the laboring population of the old world; and, while that is the case, the Jeffersonian policy may continue to exist without causing any fatal calamity. But the time will come when New-England will be as thickly peopled as Old England. Wages will be as low, and will fluctuate as much with you as with us. You will have your Manchesters and Birminghams; and, in those Manchesters and Birminghams, hundreds of thousands of artisans will assuredly be sometimes out of work. Then your institutions will be fairly brought to the test.
Distress everywhere makes the laborer mutinous and discontented, and inclines him to listen with eagerness to agitators who tell him that it is a monstrous iniquity that one man should have a million while another cannot get a full meal. In bad years there is plenty of grumbling here, and sometimes a little rioting. But it matters little. For here the sufferers are not the rulers. The supreme power is in the hands of a class, numerous indeed, but select, of an educated class, of a class which is, and knows itself to be, deeply interested in the security of property and the maintenance of order. Accordingly, the malcontents are firmly, yet gently, restrained. The bad time is got over without robbing the wealthy to relieve the indigent. The springs of national prosperity soon begin to flow again; work is plentiful; wages rise, and all is tranquillity and cheerfulness.
I have seen England pass three or four times through such critical seasons as I have described. Through such seasons the United States will have to pass, in the course of the next century, if not of this. How will you pass through them? I heartily wish you a good deliverance. But my reason and my wishes are at war, and I cannot help foreboding the worst.
It is quite plain that your Government will never be able to restrain a distressed and discontented majority. For with you the majority is the Government, and has the rich, who are always a minority, absolutely at its mercy.
The day will come when, in the State of New-York, a multitude of people, none of whom has had more than half a breakfast, or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of Legislature will be chosen?
On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a working man who hears his children cry for more bread?
I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people would, in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed-corn, and thus make the next year, a year not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stay you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.
As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals, who ravaged the Roman Empire, came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your country by your own institutions.
I have the honor to be, dear Sir, Your faithful servant, T.B. MACAULAY.
Source: MACAULAY ON DEMOCRACY. - Curious Letter from Lord Macaulay on American Institutions and Prospects. - Article - NYTimes.com
The trouble is, voting for "more of the same" sends the message to the party in question, "Yeah, this was a good candidate - give us more like this!"
NOT the message we want to be sending. Send instead the message that, if the party doesn't produce a bonafide GOOD candidate, you actually won't vote for the limpwrister they DO offer. And make them believe it. Otherwise, Romney'll be the best you (we) get offered, and the decline will continue.
Re: Macauley - how depressing, and apparently depressingly-accurate. I'm not sure which way I'd go - not a big fan of human suffering, and there'd be a ton of it as a result of The Fall Of American Civilization (and not even all of it would be here in the US, even!), but the idea of rolling over and permitting, to say nothing of actively assisting in, the creation of a tyranny in order to preserve "civilization? [barf] I keep thinking, "Civilizations can be rebuilt..."
-
Don't construe my pragmatic support for a Romney candidacy as an endorsement of the GOP. I think we all know the GOP establishment, as it is, is a fail. Romney, for me, represents the last best hope to use the current political process to save what's left of Constitutional governance in America. I am skeptical that the other GOP can really beat Obama given the state of this political culture, but Romney is not cure-all and everyone here knows that. For those who don't like the notions of secession and/or civil war, he offers, if nothing else, some time.
I honestly understand your position. But how long are we to be pragmatic merely to give ourselves some time? I've held your position through the last five elections (20 years!). The exception in that timeframe being George W's first term, but then he let me down with "safety over freedom" and DHS. At some point, we all reach our line in the sand and say, "no more". I understand those of you who haven't reached it yet, but I have.
I can no longer give the current Republican party the benefit of the doubt. I believe they need a slap in the face, and maybe 20-30% of the votes going to Ron Paul instead of Romney (or whoever the R candidate is if not Paul) will do it. And that's not a 'spite" vote. I honestly believe Ron Paul to be a better candidate than Mitt Romney. I've already sold out once voting McCain to keep Obama out. At this point I simply see nothing that Obama would do that is that much worse than what Romney would do (or not do). The line between the mainstream parties is blurring too much for my liking, and the blur screams "statism". I fear a right wing statist society as much as I fear a left wing statist society.
I want a "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party.
-
At this point, unless Paul wins, it looks like voting for Johnson, who is running as a Libertarian.
As far as politics goes, he's pretty close to Paul, except not quite as crazy. He's also had a governorship under his belt, so he's got better experience, IMO.
No way in hell I'm voting for Obama Light. At least if Obama wins, the Republicans will spend the next four years being as obstructionist as possible. I doubt that will be the case if Romney wins.
-
I want a "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party.
I want a Federalist Party. A national party whose main position is to return almost all power to the States, and at the state level to return as much power to localities.
I have extreme doubts as to its viability, though.
-
I guess I see the next four years under Obama II, should that occur, as more than a waiting game or obstructionism. I see it as an outright fight for survival.
-
I understand, but what if he is the republican candidate in November? I don't like his background with respect to firearms rights, but I am unwilling to stand by and do nothing while Obama is reelected.
I had the same conundrum with Bush/Gore in 2000. Shrubbie promised to re authorize the AWB. :facepalm: [barf] But Gore was --IMHO -- so much worse overall I held my breath and voted for Shrubbie.
Sadly, I think it's going to be somewhat the same these twelve years later.
It has been a long time since I was able to enthusiastically support any candidate................ :'(
Well in that case we're stuck with him. The best we can do is try and make sure he's not the nominee. If he is I guess I'll show up at the polls half-drunk.
If I knew we could get good solid R majorities in both the House and Senate I wouldn't care if Zero got his second term because he'd theoretically be stopped dead in his tracks if he tried to push any of his Marxist d-baggery or at least have to try an end-run.
What worries me most about Romney is HE could push some of his Marxist d-baggery and Rs would vote for it in the name of team spirit.
I want a "Leave Me The Hell Alone" party.
That's what I've been saying all along. I'll pay my taxes just leave me the hell alone and stay out of my way.
-
What worries me most about Romney is HE could push some of his Marxist d-baggery and Rs would vote for it in the name of team spirit.
This. Bush III :mad:
-
If I knew we could get good solid R majorities in both the House and Senate I wouldn't care if Zero got his second term because he'd theoretically be stopped dead in his tracks if he tried to push any of his Marxist d-baggery or at least have to try an end-run.
You know, I don't even trust that anymore. Look at what just happened with the payroll tax. The Republican majority in the house LET THEMSELVES be steamrolled by the dems and media. Pretty much all the liberal leaning people I know bring this up as an example of how the Republicans have it in for the middle class, because the dems wanted to extend the cuts two months and the Republicans didn't. Nevermind that the Republicans were actually fighting the two month extension because they wanted to extend it for a full year. Not only did they not get the year extension, but they bungled things so badly that they made the dems look like the ones that are in favor of lower taxes.
We had a clear Tea Party-leaning mandate that brought the majority into the house, yet they fold on practically every fiscal issue, and we still have people like Harry Reid calling them "extremists". I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago where one of their editors went through the entire budget fight over the last year and showed that pretty much for every cut, there was a budget increase somewhere else, so we pretty much ended up with no net savings.
If Romney is elected, there will be, like there is almost every term no matter who is in office, a flip to the other party's majority in Congress and/or the Senate. He'll "compromise" on most everything significant to show how well Republicans play with others.
-
I think we need to see beyond the overt political process. That is going to become an irrelevancy when the debt utterly crushes us and they come for our guns, etc. The Tea Party, or what follows it, is not gone, it is just the seedwork for what is growing in many, many places around this nation. One of these days a critical mass of Americans will stop being wiling to play the game, It is all based on trust, and we know that has been sorely frayed in so many ways.
-
Sorry, I know this is a little necro, but:
Ummmm... what? Washington could be described as a career politician?
Yeah, I suppose so. I don't think that's an insult to him. He's still Cincinnatus.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/washington.html
Prior Political Experience: Virginia House of Burgesses 1759-1774, Continental Congress 1774-1775, Commander in Chief of Continental Army 1775-1783
Committee Assignments: President of the Convention
Convention Contributions: Arrived May 25 and was present through the signing of the Constitution. He spoke only once near the end of the deliberations, but the record suggests that he had a profound influence on the scope and direction of the discussions. William Pierce stated that "having conducted these States to independence and peace, he now appears to assist in framing a Government to make the People happy. Like Gustavus Vasa, he made be said to be the deliverer of his Country."
New Government Participation: He supported ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia. He was unanimously elected by the Electoral College as President of the United States (1788 - 1796). He used his Presidential powers to put down the Whisky Rebellion (1794).
Biographies of delegates to the Constitutional Convention:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/