Time for paul, newt and santorum to quit...

The pathetic thing is that four years of Obama will do less damage to this country than 4 years of Romney or Santorum. Now that's REALLY bad, considering President Obama is one of the worst Presidents in US history.

And the Republicans actually vote for either of those two clowns because they think the country will be better off. LMAO! We're gonna be involved in even more wars, the governments going to be way bigger, and our inflation and debt will be out of control. No thanks to the big government Republican Romney or Santorum.

 

Right now my main three (edit: 4) issues that would decide who I'd vote for would be (and it might change with more self-education):

1. military aggression in the middle east. Obama fails, but I don't know exactly about the other candidates with respect to their real intentions about that. (Other than Ron Paul).

2. gas prices. Obama obviously fails miserably because he WANTS to raise gas prices. I'm not sure about the other candidates. (Other than Ron Paul). And,

3. regulations and taxation on businesses. Obama fails..and the other Repub candidates probably do too, but I doubt as badly.

Edit: 4. lower spending on social security, medicare and medicaid DRASTICALLY. I think that's already happening to some extent, not sure. I want these people that have their lives artificially suspended for them to die off that way they stop draining the economy I live in.

There's also the federal reserve, but I doubt anyone would ever actually dismantle it.

 

Yes yes, play your game of semantics and literalism. Whatever helps you deal with the fact that you've been exposed as someone who will root for Obama if Paul doesn't become the nominee, which he doesn't have a chance of.

And throwing your vote away and cheering on Obama is tantamount to voting for him. You apparently hate what Obama has done to the country, yet he's not the one you will "punish" in 2012. You'll cheer him on, operating from the emo/irrational section of the brain that tantrum throwing high schoolers operate from.

 

Oh, you're a soothsayer, as well? Kindly show us your evidence for these future events. I'm interested in how you can compare the effects of Romney's hypothetical first term and Obama's hypothetical second term.

 

Where did I make any obama permission claim? NOWHERE. Cooperation with one's own party is not claiming permission, it is identifying the obvious cooperation.

And the war costs are simply a huge hypocritical lie by liberals. The deficits each and every year of the Bush administration INCLUDED every cent of the cost of the wars, just as today's deficits include war costs. NOT from past costs, current costs ONLY. The Republican deficits of 2004, $412 billion included every cent of the wars costs. Same with 2005, $318 billion, 2006, $248 billion, and 2007 $161 billion. All those deficits included every cent spent on the wars for those years. There is no mysterious trillion foisted off on obama. And HOW did the Republicans pay for the war costs, install the Bush tax cuts and have a deficit that DECLINED by 23%, then, 22%, then 35%, year by year? A total decline in deficit spending of 61% in 4 years.
A STRONG ECONOMY, not government over spending.

Lowest deficit by obama and the Democrats, $1.294 trillion, is over 800% higher than the lowest deficit, $161 billion, by Bush and the Republicans.

The very sad thing is that Bush and the Republicans DID spend too much. But it turns out they were Scrooge-like misers compared to today's insane Democrats.

 

It has nothing to do with semantics and literalism. It has to do with you butchering the English language up on purpose.

"Been exposed"? You act like you got me to admit to something that I was hiding. I freely admitted it without once denying it. You just twisted my words around to make your argument stronger. Because you are a dishonorable person that needs to lie and engage in personal attacks after you've been proven wrong. That's the emo/irrational section of the brain that tantrum throwing high schoolers operate from.

The only way somebody can throw their vote away is by not voting. It's really pointless to vote for Obama or Romney/Santorum. I mean there's really no significant difference between any of them. They're all Collectivists...no matter who's in office, nothing will change. The fact that you think things will change just goes to show how delusional you really are. Paul is the only candidate who would have brought real change, but America just isn't ready for that. It's going to take a really serious crisis before people start waking up.

 

I'm not comparing Romney's hypothetical first term to Obama's hypothetical second term. I'm comparing Romney's/Santorum's hypothetical first term to Obama's first term.

Romney's and Santorum's economic plans call for more debt spending. Which means the government will be bigger, and we'll have more inflation/debt to pay for it.
Romney and Santorum both want to go into Iran. Which means there will be more wars. Paid for by inflation and debt. Amounts to more big government.

This isn't rocket science dude. Either that or you're simply not paying attention to how they're bragging about wanting more big government than what Obama has given us.

 

Yes, you've been exposed. Despite all your bloviations about being the alpha-conservative, at the end of the day, you're just another person who will root for Obama in 2012. See why I offered no apology on my previous assumptions that you took issue with? That's because I was right. It will be satisfying to see you lined up right along side the leftists rooting for Obama in a few short months.

I said you would vote for Obama in 2012 because I remember you saying you would "punish the GOP for not nominating Paul". Turns out, you really said you'd toss your vote away by writing in someone not even on the ticket, and then root for Obama in order to punish the GOP. My mistake. You seem to think there's a big difference between the two, so I'll let you keep thinking that.

No significant difference, yet you would root for Obama over any of the rest? Logically, that doesn't make sense. Your desire to "punish" indicates you are operating on more of an emotional level of reasoning.

Paul hasn't accomplished much in his long history in Government. The fact that you think things will change just goes to show how delusional you really are. He can't work with anybody who isn't in complete lock-step with him and his views.

 

You can't compare anything because you have no evidence of future consequences. Obama's economic plan was to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Did that happen?

Obama nationalized 1/7th of the US economy with Obamacare. Which Santorum/Romney policies even come close to surpassing that?

 

Give us the specifics on Romney's debt spending. I'm always up for learning something new.

 

I wouldn't count on learning something, unless you believe in his ability to tell the future. A testament to the arrogance of some Ron Paul supporters.

 

What do you have against Ron Paul, other than that he's not a war monger?

 

I have very little against Ron Paul, in all honesty. I disagree with him on some of his foreign policy beliefs and his position on Islam, but overall I like his economic views and his views on what the Government should look like. I have a bigger problem with some of his supporters who treat him as some sort of celestial being sent down to save the world, when he can't even convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him on every issue. I dislike the supporters who are essentially liberals on every issue and vote for Paul simply because of his drug policy, or his anti-war policy, or one of the other hot button issues. Not all Paul supporters are that way. The ones who aren't that way are some of the people I get along the best with here on this site. I'm only talking about a small obnoxious percentage.

 

Romney and Santorum support a much larger more intrusive government than Paul. Why choose them over him?

 

Paul has virtually no chance of winning. If he did, I'd probably choose him over Romney and Santorum. I'm not going to root for Obama over Romney/Santorum, though. That's the difference.

 

Everyone thinking that Paul can't win, is what's causing him to not win.

 

Paul doesn't even think it's likely that he will win.

He's done a good service being in the race, though. Ideas like getting rid of the fed and major Government bureaus were not attacked at all during the debates. Progress...

 

And why don't Romney and Santorum support getting rid of the fed?

 

Show me where I ever claimed to be the "alpha-conservative". Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your argument stronger.

In my head, when it comes down to Romney and Santorum.

What do your false previous assumptions have to do with me rooting for Obama over Romney/Santorum?

You have not proven that I have "little" understanding of the issues.
You have not proven that I am a disenfranchised liberal who is a libertarian soley because of the anti-war/pro-drug platform.
You have not proven that I swallow a good amount of left-wing propaganda and pro-Obama rhetoric.

In fact, it is you who has swallowed the left-wing propaganda and pro-Obama rhetoric because you think that there is some meaningful difference between Obama and Romney/Santorum.

The fact that you offered no apology for these blatant lies just goes to show the integrity of your character.

That's not going to happen.

So what am I going to accomplish by voting between Obama and Obama-lite? How is that not throwing my vote away?

My mistake. You seem to think that there's a big difference between voting for Obama and voting for whoever the Republican candidate will be, so I'll let you keep thinking that.

Sure it does. The GOP needs to be punished for nominating more liberals.

But there is zero logic behind thinking that there is a meaningful difference between Obama and the Republican candidate. The idea that there is, is really based on a purely emotional level of reasoning.

That's because Congress is corrupt. Apparently this is news to you.

My guess is you aren't aware of the fact that he can repeal every single executive order he deems necessary.
My guess is you aren't aware of the fact that he can veto every single bill that he deems necessary.

Paul would really be able to put the brakes on the federal government, despite whatever neo-conservative propaganda you spew. No other candidate will do that - they will hit the accellerator. Which you are obviously in favor of.

You seem to be under the misguided belief that efficiency in government would be a good thing. That just goes to show how deluded you really are.

 

That's true. I don't proport to predict the future.

What I can go off of is what they say they are going to do, what they say they aren't going to do, and then look at their past record and figure out what it is exactly they really are going to do and what it is they really aren't going to do.

Of course not. It was very obvious that Obama was lying. Just as Santorum and Romney's lies are obvious.

He did absolutely no such thing. You're fabricating again.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/index.htm

 

because it's a bad idea


notice how romney gives a calm reasonable answer when asked about the fed, in contrast to ron paul's crazed rant


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubaQ3Xq0M0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubaQ3Xq0M0[/ame]


santorum agrees that ron paul is dangerous

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOZF-2FlEs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOZF-2FlEs[/ame]

 

See the previous post.

I don't proport to predict the future. I just listen to what they say and look at their records and reach the logical conclusion.

It's easy to call them arrogant when you fabricate facts and dishonestly slander their character.

 

"Show me where I said that". Typical time-wasting strategy. You really want me to catalogue how many times you've elevated yourself over conservatives and argued that you were far more conservative than they are?

"In my head". Qualifying amendment to your statement noted. So I guess you will only be "rooting for Obama" in your head? Wouldn't want to remind people in a few months that you are actively rooting for Obama now, would you? Don't worry, I'll try and remind people if they should get the impression that you weren't completely happy with Obama leading in the polls.

And yet, you still will root for Obama. Hmmm....

There will be a meaningful difference if the follow through on their pledge to repeal Obamacare, which nationalized 1/7 of the US economy with the stroke of a pen. That alone will be a huge step back from the fringe.

I'll apologize to people I respect if I make an untrue statement about them. Neither of these two criteria have been met, here.

Why not? You said you'd be rooting for Obama, didn't you? I don't see the motivation in only rooting for him in your head, and not for all to see.

Wouldn't "Obama-lite" be a step up from what we have now? By adding "-lite" to the end, you seem to agree with that idea. I suspect you are being disingenuous with your claim that Romney would be worse than Obama. You think he'd be better than Obama, but since your feelings would be hurt by Ron Paul not being the candidate, you'll root for Obama simply to punish the group who did not go with Paul, regardless of the consequences to the country. I'm extrapolating on your own statement.

This nihilistic thinking is shared by many liberals who want the US to completely crash and burn so that a phoenix of socialism can rise from the ashes. More similarities....

Not really. Killing Obamacare alone would already be a huge difference between Obama and the GOP candidates.

Right, it's everyone's fault but dear leader's. If Paul wants to be President, he would have to learn to work with others who have disagreements with him. Other Presidents had to deal with Congress.

We need more than an obstructionist at this point in time. He will have to make the case against things like Obamacare in order to repeal it. Legislation is innevitable. If he can't work with anybody, nothing will get done.

More nihilism. A smaller efficient version of the Federal Government would be a great thing to have.

 

Actually, you did

In other words, you can guess. Wow.

The only way you would know for sure if they were lying is if you had the ability to predict the future, which you already said you were incapable of.

The costs of Obamacare are already double what the Obama Administration said it would cost in 2009 - 940 billion. It will cost over 2 trillion per year for Obamacare. What's our GDP at the moment?