Romney "Surrender Speech"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by diesel96, Feb 8, 2008.

  1. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    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
  2. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

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

  3. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    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.


    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!:happy-very:
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    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?

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

    1) He takes us into Pakistan?

    2),1,7013897.story?ctrack=1&cset=true Would he expand the American empire in the tragic situations of Africa?

    3) 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.

    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 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!
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    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. and

    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!

    Ron Paul on Letters of Marque and Reprisal

    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?

    Not definative by any means but rather a quick peak as an intro to the concept.
  7. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    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.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    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 :wink2:) 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!
  9. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    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.

  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

  12. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

  13. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

  14. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

  15. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    The reality is they want us dead along with Israel. The peace talks Bush has been holding between Palestine and Israel is truly a farce because the Palestinian leadership and their supporters don't want peace. They want Israel wiped off the map, and they will not stop until they achieve their goal.

    Its not the parent's job to volunteer their kids for the military. Its their children's choice to join or not. I don't know where you get the idea that McCain supports reinstatement of the draft. The only congressmen who have been pushing for a draft are democrats.

    You might want to do some more research, but my bet is that they have always been in Berkeley. It wasn't until the radical anti-war left started freaking out about them did you even hear about their presence. I've listened to a lot of soldier's stories and a lot of them want to go back. I also have several friends in the military and only one has gone to the middle east. I believe it was Diane Fienstien who tried to say that the state of California didn't have enough equipment or people left in their national guard to fight the wildfires they were dealing with a few months back. As it turned out less than 10% of California's guard troops and equipment were deployed to Iraq. Its not as bad as you think.

    Since its obvious you don't like to read the news I feel its important for you to know that we are making some serious headway in Iraq. Overall violence has been dropping for the last 6 months. The citizens of Iraq are exposing insurgent hideouts and weapons caches. Assuming this trend continues we could see some major withdrawals from Iraq without affecting the state of their security.

    Allowing for more government intrusion into our lives is not liberating anyone. In fact it is suppressing the freedoms we already have. I don't want the government in charge of my healthcare. I don't need them to provide for me, and I don't believe they should be providing for anyone else. This country is full of opportunities, and when people are forced to act they take them. Its when you allow the government to hand feed the people that you get a populous trained not to rely on their own devices for their needs.
  16. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Reality is they want us off their soil. That includes Saudi Arabia and favoritism towards Isreal. The acts of terrorism began with our meddling in the middle east. If you think Republicans and those who support this Administration's policy (including mislead Democrats) can install Democracy over there you have no clue of their culture

    Maybe you could explain why they keep asking us to stay if they want us off their soil.
  17. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I would like to expand on my earlier post.

    Diesel likes to bring up this idea that right wing conservatives listen to talk radio because we feel insecure in our ideals. That we need others to support and reiterate what we believe because ultimatly we are not fully invested in our own ideas on where this country should go. I would like to point out to him that conservatives such as myself rely on logic, facts, and knowledge of the full situation before we make a decision on where we stand. Liberals like diesel rely on emotion, conjecture, and in some cases complete ignorance to the facts when making those same decisions. I don't have an emotional investment in my ideals because I know logically they are right. Smaller government, lower taxes, and free markets benefit more people than the alternative. If Mr. Diesel wishes to discuss insecurity perhaps he should focus on his own ideas versus attacking my own. I believe people act more prudently in their choices through life when they have to stand on their own two feet. This is why private sector businesses are far more efficient than the government could ever hope to be. I feel secure enough in my personal choices and ability to make those choices that I have no desire for the government in my life. This is in contrast to the ideas of the left where they have a high level of insecurity that they feel the government needs to take a bigger role in their lives. People like Diesel do not trust their personal decision skills enough to go through life without a large government presence. Thus, the insecurity lies not with conservatives who wish to gather facts on the issues through talk radio, but with liberals who do not believe in themselves enough make sound decisions on life's many choices.
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I know we don't see eye to eye although I think we share a lot more than you realize but the following really caught my attention.

    I find myself a bit confused and I'm hoping you can clear this up. If you believe in these elements and I applaud them wholeheartedly, how would these ideals fit in the following:

    1) Massive debt increases by the federal gov't
    2) Massive growth of gov't into our daily lives
    3) Licensing and regulatory control of economics and business in which true free markets are regulated and restricted by gov't protected monopoly
    4) Mandatory citizen participation through forced, complusary taxation at federal gov't level programs and actions both domestic and foreign

    How do you understand your above statement which again I completely agree with when in turn from what I can tell you tend to support elected leaders who have little if any history of supporting except in word only the very things you hold near and dear? At least from my perspective you and some others here come across that way.

    Again, I agree but just find it confusing as to how you do it in the manner in which you do. If you could explain, I'd be most appreciative and I may even learn something too and that's always a good thing.

    Thanks in advance.
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Also Brett, in regards to the YouTube video in post #9 which was funny BTW, the backing monolog was very good and made a good point about the fact you can't win over tyrrants with good deeds. However, Madam Albright was not setting a new model of diplomacy in her actions but rather following to the letter what had been set as precedence before her. To resolve an adverse problem. I'm sure you'd agree that going to the root of the problem is the first step of avoiding that same mistake. With that said maybe you should consider this video as a possible reason for why Madame Albright did what she did. I think you may find it interesting.

    Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein
  20. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Brett....Logic, facts, knowledge.....Don't go Spock on us. This is planet Earth, not Vulcan.
    I'm am human......I reley on emotion, compassion, gut feeling and raw data. I do not experience tunnel vision or selective hearing when it comes to ignoring the fallacies of our current state of the Union both economically and overseas policy. I believe in a mixed economy, not so much like in Europe, however I believe in BASIC social services as well as a thriving free market. However (keyword) a free market who accepts inherited tax breaks that moves their workforce and operations overseas and doesn't give back to the community, labor force or country for the sheer greeed and profit sharing to the share holders is unacceptable and should lose their tax cuts. I also believe we don't care for lead in our childrens toys, un-inspected overseas drug labs concocting our recalled medication, bacteria in our foods, saftey in our workplaces, ect. so some regulation is neccessary.
    How can such a small Rep Gov't, claim to lower taxes, and at the same time keep spending and borrowing like their's no tommorrow. Is it the 40 year plan that our children and grand children are reponsible for?
    My insecurity stems from the Conservative way of life that has fallen flat on it's face for the past 7 years, correction, since the Reagon days when his policies on the middle class promoted it's demised. I'd also like to preserve our privacy from wire tapping, eavesdropping and e-mailing.
    Sound personal decisions do come from the heart and the notion that liberals/Dems depends on big Gov't making decisions for us is very over exaggerated and untrue, fact is we understand the Gov't works for us (we the people) and won't let ANY Gov't in office (Rep or Dem) grasp to much power and executive privledge and pull the wool over our eyes. As far as Conservative Talk radio, seems like sort of a egotistical let down that your own mainstream republican party sent a message to these talking heads, maybe you shouldn't gather facts from these guys because you own party isn't listening to them.