Romney "Surrender Speech"

[diesel96]

So, he quits the race and fear-monger's at the same time. Introduced at CPAC as “the conservative’s conservative” by Laura (The B!tch) Ingraham. Are you kidding me? A guy who was B-4 his presidential campaign pro-illegal immigrant, more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, pro-choice, pro stem cell research, and anti-NRA? The guy who said, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. And Conservative AM Talk Dogs have the audacity to attack John McCain and call him a “liberal”.
Romney's farewell spliel attacking liberal judges and unions, making fun of France, and hitting all the right-wing talking points, implying that it’s the conservatives who are the principled, family values people having to fight off attacks on our culture (from liberals, obviously) is exactly why he has no business being president of a UNITED States of America. Romney picked easy targets for applause lines like Ahmadinejad, Putin and “radical jihadists” sure to get hoo-rah's from the Kool-Aid crowd. Oh, and of course he talked about how brave our soldiers are and how their numbers were depleted by Clinton. Wait a minute! How long has it been since Clinton has been president? If it’s true that our military was decimated by Clinton, why didn’t the Republican who followed him rebuild it? Romney’s speech was a disgusting display of fear-mongering, playing the old “elect them and we’ll get attacked” card. And then he said he has to get out now to stop Hillary and Barack, and he “can’t let (my) campaign be a surrender to terror.” So if you stay in the race that means you’ve surrendered America to terror, by allowing a Democrat to be elected? Sickening

[Jones]

At the same conference, conservative attendees had to be instructed not to boo John McCain:

click

[brett636]

Unfortunatly the choice for the republican candidate has gone from reagan style true conservatives (thompson, hunter, tancredo) to semi conservative (Guliani, Romney, Huckabee), and now we get a not so conservative, almost democrat nominee. As someone who holds conservative values I will come out and say I do not support McCain, but I do not want to see a socialist (democrap) get the whitehouse. McCain has an uphill battle ahead of him as true conservatives, which makes up the base of the republican party, are less enthused to vote for him based on his record. Romney, who wasn't perfect, was the most conservative of the bunch that had a chance to get the nomination.

In response to your right wing talking points comment, its important to have a candidate who knows national security, free market healthcare choices, and less overall government are the real solutions to our current problems. Obama and Clinton will only tax us more in an effort to redistribute wealth through expensive, complicated, social programs that will bankrupt our government, and weaken us as a nation. Throwing more tax money at issues, and increasing the size of the government will only make our problems worse.

[wkmac]

At the same conference, conservative attendees had to be instructed not to boo John McCain:

click

Jones,
Ironic you mention this as Glenn Beck on his radio show this morning (Beck a Romneyite) had some lady from CPAC and she told about not only what you said above but also said they packed some McCain supporters in the audience as a counter measure. However, according to her, what shocked her was the speech after McCain's that got a wild rousing response of approval. The speaker even to my surprise was Ron Paul.

Intereseting.

McCain is going to need a bonefide Conservative as VP but who will it be. I still say watch for Newt!

You know it won't be Ron Paul!

[wkmac]

No argument the events in the republican party are interesting to some, and to others? To quote someone here, "sickening!" As much disarray as the repubs. seem to be in and I would concur with that thought, the democrats are not without their mounting potential for volcanic eruption. The liberal core of the party (not the leadership) knows Hillary is no anti-war type contary to so-called conservative labeling. She was part and parcel with Bill in the 90's with the Balkans which many to this day are even more puzzled over than Iraq and even discounting her Iraq war vote she recently voted to make the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization which in effect greenlights Bush or in her case, the next sitting President to go full out into Iran. Much of the reason the anti-war left has shifted to Obama as they see her as the war party (democrat style) candidate. Even Michael Moore said his beliefs prevented him from voting for her. Pull up YouTube Micheal Moore/Larry King show.

But Obama isn't anti-war either! He is anti-Iraq or so he sez but how firm is that position? Consider the first line of this speech given at an anti-war rally in Chicago 2002'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...7s_Iraq_Speech

I'd also ask you consider the following 3 item.

1) http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-fly-over.html He takes us into Pakistan?

2) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true Would he expand the American empire in the tragic situations of Africa?

3) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200707...eadership.html Or a return to true global democratization (Wilsonian style) under the guise of Common Security for a Common Humanity or this a veiled way of saying New World Order Democrat Party Style?

As republicans of a conservative nature may have to hold their nose and vote McCain to maintain power or as they obviously were prepared to do in the case of Romney at least IMO, I think the hardcore liberal anti-war wing of the democrat party will have to do the same with either Hillary or Obama but there is a problem underneath that the republicans won't have to face.

Superdelegates! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080207...s_080207143748
In some quaters, it's building steam in a bad way to the point that Donna Brazille, super delegate at large, on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer told Wolf that she would resign her position in the party if the Superdelgate process selected the nominee over the voice of the voters. Now why would Donna say such a thing? Because IMO she understands exactly what voter suppression means and what her parties actions are all about. Even the voices of Democratic Underground are speaking out http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x4445803 Even Hoard Dean earlier this week said that he would call a meeting in April in there is no clear front runner so seek a compromise or in other words, convince one or the other to step aside in order to avoid a convention disaster.

Add to this that Florida and Michigan, because they went against the party bosses with their primaries, at this time are not allowed to seat their delegates and thus the voice of those democrat voters have been silenced. Again, voter suppression! And under all of this is the evil stain of racism peeking out it's ugly head in the race between Hillary and Obama and in many quarters of democrat circles, it's led by a former democrat President who should know better. Some argue his comments were meant to cause fear among a white southern electorate which seems at this time to all but ignored his words.

The repubs. have their problems and issues but the democrats aren't without their broken windows either. Before you start throwing rocks, at least make sure you walked outside your own house to do so!

[wkmac]

Unfortunatly the choice for the republican candidate has gone from reagan style true conservatives (thompson, hunter, tancredo) to semi conservative (Guliani, Romney, Huckabee), and now we get a not so conservative, almost democrat nominee. As someone who holds conservative values I will come out and say I do not support McCain, but I do not want to see a socialist (democrap) get the whitehouse. McCain has an uphill battle ahead of him as true conservatives, which makes up the base of the republican party, are less enthused to vote for him based on his record. Romney, who wasn't perfect, was the most conservative of the bunch that had a chance to get the nomination.

In response to your right wing talking points comment, its important to have a candidate who knows national security, free market healthcare choices, and less overall government are the real solutions to our current problems. Obama and Clinton will only tax us more in an effort to redistribute wealth through expensive, complicated, social programs that will bankrupt our government, and weaken us as a nation. Throwing more tax money at issues, and increasing the size of the government will only make our problems worse.

You know Brett, on the one hand I can appreciate some of what you say. I too think of gov't in vastly smaller sizes as yourself and I'd bet in ways even smaller that yourself but your point is well taken. I'd throw AV in here as well if he doesn't mind because he also has expressed ideas of smaller gov't. As it pertains to those issues and the choice you will most likely face come Nov. as a voter of those ideals, you my friend IMO missed the very chance to actually vote for someone who was for that and more. And yes I'm gonna say Ron Paul. I'm sure in return you will fire back, but the war on terror and his stance on the use of the miltary.

This situation has been a result of a good job by the media or I should say party lackees and a bad job by the Ron Paul campaign and I think the Paul campaign gets the bulk of the blame. The media plays along because in effect they're partners in crime for not doing their job as neutral media running up to the war itself.

First off, contary to myth, Ron voted to authorize Afghanistan but he went one step further using US Constitution, Art. 1 Sec. 8 with Letters of Marque and Reprisal. http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm and http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

Now for guys like yourself and AV who love the idea of privatization, you should be all over this idea. How does this work with Ron? Take 2 plus minutes and watch this!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI"]YouTube - Ron Paul on "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"[/ame]

I'm not saying this resolves everything in your mind or in AV's and it may not answer every question either but from many of your own POV's, his idea to battle global terrorism squares very much with many ideas of your own at least from my POV in reading your many posts!

What is Letter of Marque?
http://www.answers.com/topic/letter-of-marque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Not definative by any means but rather a quick peak as an intro to the concept.

[diesel96]

[quote=wkmac]
Much of the reason the anti-war left has shifted to Obama as they see her as the war party (democrat style) candidate. Even Michael Moore said his beliefs prevented him from voting for her. Pull up YouTube Micheal Moore/Larry King show.

But Obama isn't anti-war either! He is anti-Iraq or so he sez but how firm is that position? Consider the first line of this speech given at an anti-war rally in Chicago 2002'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...7s_Iraq_Speech

Anti-war is a bumper sticker slogan directed towards Democratic Ideaology conjured up by the right wing base of the republican hate machine. Labeling someone against the Iraq war/occupation as anti-war is a fallacy. This manufactured perception of Democratics as peace lovin "make love-not war" hippy's from the sixties may fool many on the right but history will acknowledge some of the carnage inflicted by us were raged by Democratic leadership. Our differences is we believe in the military shall be used for the Dept. of DEFENSE, not the Dept. of OFFENSE.

[wkmac]

Dez,

I think the anti-war label has gone much further. I agree that much of the anti-war tag is intended to suggest at the psy-ops level(thrown about by political wonks of the Neo-Cons and fellow travelers) a connection with 60's radical hippies (hey, I was a hippie once ) but it's gone much further to be used against everything from anti-empire types like Ron Paul to Pat Buchannan to Ralph Nader to libertarians (especially Rothbardian types) anti-state and anarchist to the traditional liberal or hardcore left. To say purely a tool to slam democrats is not looking at the big picture but democrats sure get their fair share at least from the barking dogs! You'll also notice here from time to time that when people object to the war policy, they are lumped into the "democrat" or "lefty liberal" camp when a quick read of other posts clearly show those posters are in fact nothing close to that.

The whole process IMO is nothing but a convient tool for those lacking the ability to discuss all facts and ideas on a subject but then again, we're all human so there you go!

[brett636]

[quote=diesel96;300828]

Much of the reason the anti-war left has shifted to Obama as they see her as the war party (democrat style) candidate. Even Michael Moore said his beliefs prevented him from voting for her. Pull up YouTube Micheal Moore/Larry King show.

But Obama isn't anti-war either! He is anti-Iraq or so he sez but how firm is that position? Consider the first line of this speech given at an anti-war rally in Chicago 2002'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...7s_Iraq_Speech

Anti-war is a bumper sticker slogan directed towards Democratic Ideaology conjured up by the right wing base of the republican hate machine. Labeling someone against the Iraq war/occupation as anti-war is a fallacy. This manufactured perception of Democratics as peace lovin "make love-not war" hippy's from the sixties may fool many on the right but history will acknowledge some of the carnage inflicted by us were raged by Democratic leadership. Our differences is we believe in the military shall be used for the Dept. of DEFENSE, not the Dept. of OFFENSE.

I would have to say the democrats have well earned their cut and run/appeasement attitude on foreign relations. It doesn't take much digging into history to find that this kind of attitude only makes the world more dangerous, and not safer, for the U.S.

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=WchSVugLf4Y"]YouTube - Zucker Takes On Democrat Appeasement[/ame]

[diesel96]

[quote=brett636;301179][quote=diesel96;300828]


I would have to say the democrats have well earned their cut and run/appeasement attitude on foreign relations. It doesn't take much digging into history to find that this kind of attitude only makes the world more dangerous, and not safer, for the U.S.

So has the Republican "Messiah Ron Reagon" displayed the cut and run appeasement on middle east radicals. He was smart enough to figure out these people are friggin nuts and we are unwelcome visitors there. Whats making the world more dangerous is our and coalition presence there instills more breeding and recruiting against the infidels and the west.