That's true.
Your typical Republican is more worried about winning than about trying to advance their own ideology.
toldailytopic: Is Romney better or worse than Obama?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Your typical Republican is more worried about winning than about trying to advance their own ideology.
Brother Vinny
Active member
WizardofOz
New member
Exactly!
The mantra has been "anyone but Obama". Well, Romney is certainly an "anyone". He's quite liberal and pragmatic, will flip on an issue if he thinks it would make him more popular, and is at times an awkward public speaker.
Everything people complained about with Bush, Obama has continued, and everything people complain about Obama, Romney will continue.
How are they different? With Obama, his policies should largely be expected. With Romney, you expect a GOP conservative but will only get Obama in a different suit and bad hair, and risk having him for eight years instead of only four more.
So the question is Ralphie: Who is the true conservative candidate left in the GOP race?
Is it Rick Santorum, or is it the pro sodomy/drugs/prostitution LIBERTARIAN loonyman Ron Paul? (Notice I didn't bother mentioning Gingrich, as he's as much of a joke as Romney).
WizardofOz
New member
I am sure your definition of "true conservative" (see neoconservative) differs from mine. Santorum is conservative other than his neoconservative view on foreign policy.
Paul is certainly more conservative (see Constitutionalist) than Santorum. Paul is also not "pro sodomy/drugs/prostitution" but we all know you're incapable of being honest once entrenched in a said position.
This is one reason I no longer vote according to political party. Most republicans claim to be conservative, believing in what I believe. But, once they get into office, I find out that they lied. I will not vote for a democrat at all. So, my choice is to listen to those who are not part of either main party and choose according to who sounds like they will make a difference if they get elected. If they lie, I will not vote for them again.
PureX
Well-known member
To be honest, I don't see a lot of difference between Romney and Obama. They are both pretty 'milquetoast' in my opinion. I suppose I would prefer Obama because he seems to be effective in foreign policy matters, and he has shown some real courage regarding the Seal Team 6 missions. I also believe that Obama does sincerely care about the poor, working, and middle classes, even though he does very little about their problems. I don't believe Romney for an instant when he claims to care about the suffering of the middle and working classes. He's got 'corporate crony' written all over him.
Yeah, I don't see buggery as a conservative value. So yes, we differ there.
On certain economic matters yes. I'll give credit to Santorum for wanting to bring American jobs home, while Paul thinks that jobs in China are good for the American people. (He said it in a recent GOP debate).
Holy Moses
New member
There is absolutely NO choice for making this country better. I can't stand Obama, and Romney is exactly the same. They all pander to the same people. It is so frustrating that we are running on the hamster wheel in this election.
:idunno: Start a thread (the elephant in the room)--will conservatives vote for the antichrist (not "the" but "an" antichrist), Romney :reals: if he gets the nomination?
Understand the spirit of antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).
See:
The Jesus test, the gospel test, and the fruit test
Last edited:
The most you could say about Romney is that he would be the least horrible of all the Republican hopefuls. He's hardly a "liberal"; just not as much of a right-wing extremist wingnut as the others.
But Obama, though he's far from perfect, is still infinitley preferable to any of the Republicans. Electing one this November will bring the whole abominable Republican party back to power,
and only encourage the even more abomominable religious right.
This will give more power to the dangerous anti-choice movement,
encourage creationist idiots to try to teach creationism in public schools as scinetific fact, cause appalling setbacks for vital scientific and medical research, greatly redeuce help for the poor, which will only increase poverty,unemployment , crime and abortion,etc.
I shudder to think what the Republicans will do to America.
If you think Obama is bad . . . . .
But Obama, though he's far from perfect, is still infinitley preferable to any of the Republicans. Electing one this November will bring the whole abominable Republican party back to power,
and only encourage the even more abomominable religious right.
This will give more power to the dangerous anti-choice movement,
encourage creationist idiots to try to teach creationism in public schools as scinetific fact, cause appalling setbacks for vital scientific and medical research, greatly redeuce help for the poor, which will only increase poverty,unemployment , crime and abortion,etc.
I shudder to think what the Republicans will do to America.
If you think Obama is bad . . . . .
WizardofOz
New member
Neither do I, nor does Paul. But, keep lying. Why stop now?
Look at their voting records. Paul is much more fiscally conservative than Santorum.
| We examined Santorum’s congressional record to determine the true extent of his fiscal-conservative bona fides. What did he do to reduce or increase spending? Can he really distinguish himself from Romney when it comes to entitlements? And what’s the story with those earmarks? THE FACTS In terms of taxes, it’s hard to dispute Santorum’s conservative credentials. He voted at least eight times to support tax cuts and oppose tax increases. In addition, his current economic plan calls for a litany of tax reductions, including one proposal for a zero-percent rate for manufacturers. Spending is another story. The free-market advocacy group Club for Growth describes Santorum’s fiscal record as conservative early on, but “plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006.” Data from the National Taxpayers Union shows that Santorum ranked in the top third among Senate Republicans for highest amount of proposed funding increases during the 107th Congress. He sponsored legislation to raise federal spending by a net $27 billion during that period, from January 2001 to January 2003. Perhaps the most damning aspect of Santorum’s record is his appetite for so-called pork barrel spending. The Club for Growth described him as a prolific earmarker, citing his support for the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” project as a primary example — McCain and former running mate Sarah Palin turned that project into the poster child for earmark abuse during the 2008 election. source |
Another big spending "fiscal conservative".
PureX
Well-known member
None of these guys will give a rat's patute about the religious right once they get elected. I'm continually surprised at the religious right's propensity for being duped by these republicans over and over and over, again.
In a sick sort of way, I almost want to see them win, as we apparently aren't going to make any real changes in this country until we have pretty much totally destroyed it. I figure another republican administration should do it. Maybe then, whoever's left alive will have the incentive to enact real reforms.
eameece
New member
Why would that be such a bad thing?
We need to move forward in our country.
I understand conservatives have some valid concerns, like abortion, and sometimes personal behavior needs to be regulated.
Are there better ways to handle these things than conservatives tend to insist on?
For example:
Can't the abortion pill take the issue off the table? Can't moral education, fair laws, and treatment deal with some of the rough edges of this and other bad behavior?
On the other hand, conservatives today are blocking all the things we need to do to make our society and planet a healthy and sustainable place to live for all people. If more radical "fanatic" conservatives became common-sense moderates, we could move forward on these issues, while still doing so with a measure of caution when needed. There would be less polarization, conflict, and stalemate.
Is Rick Warren an example of this, to some degree?
eameece
New member
It's decisions and policies like this that illustrate what the Republicans are all about:
quote:
Obama took veiled aim at the Republican front-runner on a potent issue for voters in Nevada. In October, when asked what should be done about the housing crisis, Romney told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."
The president, not mentioning Romney's name, told an audience in Falls Church, Va.: "It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. I refuse to accept that, and so do the American people."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-race-20120202,0,2242057.story
Boehner said the same thing yesterday. Trickle-down economics ideology prevents them from doing anything to require banks to clean up the mess they caused and help the people. We must let things take their course. Don't interfere with the free market. This is ALL the Republicans offer, and they don't offer it just because someone pays them money to offer it. They offer it because they are hooked on Reagan ideology and think it works to their political advantage.
The whole problem here is that banks are being allowed to do what they want. They screwed all these homebuyers with mortgages they can't pay, and now the homeowners can't pay them. What is required is for the banks to be required to refinance these mortgages. That's the only way to deal with the housing crisis, which is a crisis of being not being able to pay mortgages with interest that is too high. This is the problem that caused the recession, and so dealing with it will help the economic recovery. Obama has made a start at doing this, and needs to do more. Romney and the Republicans are just creeps who don't want to help anyone, in order to preserve their stupid ideology. They all deserve to be thrown out of office on their behinds, and Romney should be buried in a landslide just for making this stupid remark.
Along with all the other stupid remarks he's made... now let's see if I can remember some of them. Oh yes, corporations are people. I'm not interested in the poor people; they are already taken care of. I'll bet you $10,000, and yes the $350,000 I got for speaking engagements last year was just a little money. I think someone needs to keep a list. Oh, and "I like firing people;" that's another good one!
quote:
Obama took veiled aim at the Republican front-runner on a potent issue for voters in Nevada. In October, when asked what should be done about the housing crisis, Romney told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."
The president, not mentioning Romney's name, told an audience in Falls Church, Va.: "It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. I refuse to accept that, and so do the American people."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-race-20120202,0,2242057.story
Boehner said the same thing yesterday. Trickle-down economics ideology prevents them from doing anything to require banks to clean up the mess they caused and help the people. We must let things take their course. Don't interfere with the free market. This is ALL the Republicans offer, and they don't offer it just because someone pays them money to offer it. They offer it because they are hooked on Reagan ideology and think it works to their political advantage.
The whole problem here is that banks are being allowed to do what they want. They screwed all these homebuyers with mortgages they can't pay, and now the homeowners can't pay them. What is required is for the banks to be required to refinance these mortgages. That's the only way to deal with the housing crisis, which is a crisis of being not being able to pay mortgages with interest that is too high. This is the problem that caused the recession, and so dealing with it will help the economic recovery. Obama has made a start at doing this, and needs to do more. Romney and the Republicans are just creeps who don't want to help anyone, in order to preserve their stupid ideology. They all deserve to be thrown out of office on their behinds, and Romney should be buried in a landslide just for making this stupid remark.
Along with all the other stupid remarks he's made... now let's see if I can remember some of them. Oh yes, corporations are people. I'm not interested in the poor people; they are already taken care of. I'll bet you $10,000, and yes the $350,000 I got for speaking engagements last year was just a little money. I think someone needs to keep a list. Oh, and "I like firing people;" that's another good one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yeah, I don't see buggery as a conservative value. So yes, we differ there.
Being that Ron Paul is running for POTUS, I'll concentrate on what he's said and done:
From an interview with John Lofton, 2008:
"Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin? “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.”
Well looky here, there's a youtube video of Ron Paul saying those words:
And how did Congressman Ron Paul vote when it came to allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US military?
"House Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers last night to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that has for decades allowed gays to serve in the military. The only caveat is they aren’t allowed to broadcast what they’re doing in their government-supplied bedrooms.
Five Republicans voted to join the radical gay lobby in pushing passage of Nancy Pelosi’s remaining priority item before the elections. Those five Republicans are: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254
Regarding homosexual marriage. How does Congressman Ron Paul feel about that?
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[136] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[137] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[138][139] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
In review:
1) Ron Paul doesn't think that homosexuality is a sin.
2) Ron Paul was one of 5 republicans that voted to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
3) Ron Paul states "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Now where exactly did I lie Ralphie?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yeah, I don't see buggery as a conservative value. So yes, we differ there.
Being that Ron Paul is running for POTUS, I'll concentrate on what he's said and done:
From an interview with John Lofton, 2008:
"Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin? “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.”
Well looky here, there's a youtube video of Ron Paul saying those words:
| Dr. Ron Paul is smarter than God it appears | |
And how did Congressman Ron Paul vote when it came to allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US military?
"House Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers last night to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that has for decades allowed gays to serve in the military. The only caveat is they aren’t allowed to broadcast what they’re doing in their government-supplied bedrooms.
Five Republicans voted to join the radical gay lobby in pushing passage of Nancy Pelosi’s remaining priority item before the elections. Those five Republicans are: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254
Regarding homosexual marriage. How does Congressman Ron Paul feel about that?
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[136] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[137] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[138][139] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
In review:
1) Ron Paul doesn't think that homosexuality is a sin.
2) Ron Paul was one of 5 republicans that voted to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
3) Ron Paul states "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Now where exactly did I lie Ralphie?
Probably. There's always a better way, I think.
...
You obviously don't understand what the issue is. The issue is abortion being murder. Murder of a helpless baby, no less.
So, no. No, that doesn't take the issue off the table at all.
You'll have to explain what 'moral education' and 'fair laws' mean exactly. Some of us around here aren't liberals. :idunno:
They might be great ideas but I've never heard of them. You'll forgive me if they somehow remind of things like 'doublethink' and 'duckspeaking'. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
...because they don't think those things will make our society and planet a healthy and sustainable place to live for all people. Or do you really think they do and that they block those things anyway?
Yes. If more conservatives stopped disagreeing with you and resisting your efforts you would indeed be able to more forward more easily.
Now...why do they disagree with you? Do you know?
Or maybe you just don't care? And would rather all those people who disagree with you just shut up and step aside? Because you know better than they do? Kinda the impression I'm getting here...
An example of people who call themselves Christian while providing absolutely no substantive hindrance to this 'progress' you speak of? Yes, I think he is a fine example of that.
Define "behaving well", and after that tell us how to we can treat others with respect if they're not behaving well.
Preachers are like that, they have the audacity to think that moral character is based on doctrine from God. Too bad politicians don't think more like preachers in that respect.
eameece
New member
Most of you aren't, I know.
Of course you are. Drug treatment works better than prison, for example. Education about alternatives to abortion. Respect for differences can be taught. I mean, education to teach people to respect others and not violate them, rather than blanket condemnations because they are gay, or because they violate other such arbitrary prohibitions based on prejudice.
All I know is that they are blocking the things that we need. I tend to think you guys think the way you do, because you are told to think that way by authority, and you believe people should obey authority. As for example, the Bible, or Ronald Reagan, or whoever it is for you. In any case, your views are extreme (by your own description) and destructive too. You, or people like you (if not you personally, and see for example aculturewarriors posts re "doctrine from God" etc.), think the government should not help people and the rich should pay little or no taxes, that climate change is bogus, that religion should be taught in public schools, that wars of conquest are justified, and so on. There is room for disagreement. But you guys are dogmatic, stubborn, and engaging in blackmail to get your way, a way that to me has no value whatever.
You have labelled yourself in the side panel as a right wing fanatic. I am surprised you are even as reasonable as you have been in this post. That's not saying much, though. But yes, it would make things a lot easier if you would step aside. I don't think there's much point in your positions; they are too extreme, even if there are kernels of justified concerns in them. I'm not a fan of abortion, and understand why people oppose it. But there are concerns on the other side too, like the rights of women. The abortion pill almost goes to the beginning of the whole embryonic process and stops it. That may not be absolutely perfect, if you would rather have the issue than solve problems; but in a society of people who can get along, it is good enough.Yes. If more conservatives stopped disagreeing with you and resisting your efforts you would indeed be able to more forward more easily.
Now...why do they disagree with you? Do you know?
Or maybe you just don't care? And would rather all those people who disagree with you just shut up and step aside? Because you know better than they do? Kinda the impression I'm getting here...
A worthy model for you then!
Last edited: