ADVERTISEMENT

Mitt Romney easily won the Illinois Republican Primary on Tuesday adding to his delegate lead and dealing a setback to the Santorum campaign hoping to build on recent momentum.

ADVERTISEMENT
Results for Illinois Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Mar 20, 2012 (>99% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 429,533 46.7%
Rick Santorum 322,423 35%
Ron Paul 85,747 9.3%
Newt Gingrich 73,246 8%
Other 9,175 1%

Report from CBS News:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cruised to victory in the Illinois Republican presidential primary on Tuesday night, defeating his closest rival, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, by double digits.

With nearly all precincts reporting, Romney had 47 percent of the votes cast to Santorum’s 35 percent. Ron Paul was in third with 9 percent, and Newt Gingrich in fourth with 8 percent. Turnout was light in the state.

In victory remarks in Schaumburg, Illinois, Tuesday night, Romney kept his focus squarely on President Obama — not his Republican primary opponents.

“Three years of Barack Obama have brought us fewer jobs and shrinking paychecks, but many of us believed we were in danger of losing something even more than the value of our homes and our 401(k)s,” he said. “After years of too many apologies and not enough jobs, historic drops in income and historic highs in gas prices, a president who doesn’t hesitate to use all the means necessary to force through Obamacare on the American public, but leads from behind in the world. It’s time to say these words, this word: enough. We’ve had enough.”

CBS News exit polls found that Romney, whose base of support was in Chicago and its suburbs, performed well among college graduates, Catholics and voters who see the economy as the most important issue facing the country. He also had a small edge over Santorum among those identifying as conservative. Santorum led Romney among white evangelicals and those identifying as very conservative.

Santorum is going to have a tough road ahead over the next few weeks, especially April 24 which could be deemed the Northeast Super Tuesday with many New England states which are favorable to Romney. Louisiana will caucus in a few days but Santorum’s next hope might not be until Indiana on May 8. Gingrich appears to be a non-factor moving forward and Ron Paul will likely continue scraping by with his piles of cash as opposed to piles of votes.

279 COMMENTS

  1. Yep. . .

    Brilliant plan for RP’s staff to attack Santorum over the past month.

    Pretty much handed over the nomination to Willard.

    I’m no Santorum fan, but this year’s primary has been all about trying to take the party out of the hands of Willard’s billionaires and party establishment.

    The petty squabbles between Santorum and Paul and Gingrich have just increased the negativity toward each of these three. The criticism should have been all-Willard, all-the-time.

  2. O.K. Governor, just what are the S P E C I F I C , not rhetoric comments, on just how you will turn the presently destroyed economy.

        • Yeah.

          Paul did great. But it was in 2007. I was under the impression that it was new.

          But maybe that’s the answer. Networks want ratings. The idea that Paul is being ignored is only because the networks think he has a tiny following of zealots. And when his supporters scream paranoia about media blocking him, they look even more paranoid.

          What Ron Paul’s supporters should do is use their numbers to convince the Tonight Show and others that PEOPLE WILL WATCH. If the networks thought that, he’d be all over the tube, since ratings is all they really care about.

          Look at Michael Moore. He goes on television to promote a movie, and he spends his time berating the network. They invite him back, because he brings in numbers. Likewise, his books are all about crony capitalism, yet the big publishing houses give him a forum. Moore says huge corporations only care about profits, so they will finance getting the word out–as long as they get a piece of the action.

          If Ron Paul’s supporters could get him on TV, he’s plenty entertaining enough. He could go from one show to another, and traditional campaigning would no longer matter.

          I repeat, NETWORKS WANT RATINGS. They have to be convinced that there are a lot of supporters out there, and that they will WATCH if he’s on.

          Paul isn’t taken seriously in the newsroom because he gets relatively few votes. And the entertainment division sees that and they think few votes = few viewers. If RP’s supporters could focus on ONE outlet, such as The Tonight Show, they’d have him on again. And if the ratings jump, he’d be all over the tube.

          Greed is what motivates the network, not some nefarious ideological plot.

    • Robert Weinand

      Like Obama, the only plan Romney has, is to “stack” the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and ANY Positions within his Administration which “oversees” the Economy – with Wall Street Bankers, FED “stooges” and Corporate CEO’s (on the dole). That’s how the Game is played. They “look out” for their Buddies.

      It’s a shame that Ron Paul is being marginalized by the Corporate Media – and that the People are so STUPID that they can’t see that Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Obama have NO DESIRE to “change” the Status-Quo. It’s too bad that the People are so Economically “Illiterate”.

      • I completely agree. They (Americans) have been so hyped by their own biased media that they have NO CLUE as to what is really going on in their own country.

        I have to read foreign papers to get the truth. Rumor is… Obama plans to stop all Americans from having access to those sites in the very near future. A dictator doesn’t like his plans revealed. It’s better to keep the flock in check and know where they are. Spose’ that’s why they have so many concentration camps in the USA now.

        All so sad and needless…

        • All so sad and needless…

          Sure is when all the voters have to do is stay home come election day. Oh don’t worry as the Ron Paul people will be out in force no matter what.

      • I find it funny that the 155 delegates available in Texas, many, if not all, of which would have been for Ron Paul, have to wait yet again for their election process.

        First it was Feb then March then April and now it’s May 29th.

        The Obomney banksters are desperate not to have the People the chance of voting with any positive ferver in any dramatic noticeable way in favour of Ron Paul. So they’ve only allowed Texas to vote when they’ve already sown up the media bias and the public ignorance through media and vote fraud.

        Welcome to America, where people are Selected not Elected!

        So much for spreading Democracy, when you can’t even have it in your own country!!!!

        Welcome to 1984 – Please check your RFID chip before the TSA molest your children in the name of ‘security’; slave.

        • Meeman

          The only way for Ron Paul to succeed is to run as a Republican right up to the Convention – then “break off” and run as an Independent. To me, it won’t matter. I REFUSE to vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Obama. They are all the SAME! I’ll “write-in” Ron Paul come the General Election.

          • That’s exactly right.

            Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul should all finde a separate argument against Romney. Divide and conquer. NONE of them have a chance if Romney keeps rolling toward the nomination.

            Ron Paul should stop sniping at his partners in this effort, focus on pointing out Willard’s faults, and if he can’t be stopped, run Libertarian Party.

            HOWEVER, an alternative would be to drop out of the Republican race, declare himself an independent, and use his organization to get the AMERICANS ELECT online nomination. In that case, he would have to drop out now. Americans Elect won’t allow a party candidate to run also as the AE nominee.

            • Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul should all finde a separate argument against Romney.

              How can they when they are so much like him. When the Prince of Pork Loses his home state you can stick a fork in him. (he’s done)

            • I wouldn’t say they’re alike.

              Willard is running to be King of the One Percent,

              Santorum is running for Pope, and

              Gingrich is running off at the mouth.

              Ron Paul is running for First Citizen, but he’s poking the sacred pigs of each camp along the way. He would have done better to LIMIT his message to a few key points. He speaks in utopian tones, and that’s why so many people think he’s crazy. He’s a visionary of a full program–but it is so different from what we have that it scares people. He would have done better to talk less about goals and more about objectives–baby steps that the public could understand.

            • He would have done better to talk less about goals and more about objectives–baby steps that the public could understand.

              For sure I’d like to believe you but we have had really good messengers like Bob Barr and Dennis Kucinich. Both are like history now.

            • –And for the same reason.

              If you are specific about near-term objectives, you can get people to agree. If you are an oracle, like Kucinich or Paul, people can’t absorb it all. They don’t understand how to get there from here, so they think you’re “radical” and discount your message.

            • If you are an oracle, like Kucinich or Paul, people can’t absorb it all. They don’t understand how to get there from here, so they think you’re “radical” and discount your message.

              People hear what they want to hear and the don’t want to hear about debt or “liquidating debt”. Most are paying on their homes, cars and credit cards so any plan that isn’t for today is what they want to hear. 10 years down the line is fine, just keep kicking the can down the road like Greece did.

            • I think you’re underestimating the American Public.

              If Bush had said, “we have a crisis, and we all have to work together,” people would have followed him and we would have STILL had a surplus. Instead, he told us to go shopping and don’t worry our pretty little heads about our national future–and put two wars on our national credit card.

              That’s spilt milk, of course, but I do believe that if you are straight with the American people, describe a very specific need, and a very specific path to take, I think we’ll do it.

            • The road to hell is paved with good intentions but the American people are addicted to subsidized spending. They ain’t going to give it up the easy way by voting for Ron Paul.

          • What is so great about Ron Paul. He is more radical than the other candidates. I would vote for Paul over Santorum because Santorum is too conservative. My vote is going to be more based on who I think can help out the economy. I think that the best way for the government to help the economy is to get out of the way. However, this needs to be sustained. Throwing money at the economy like Obama has should make things look good in the short term (I think his methods stink is the reason why it has failed to do so) but bad for the long term because it props up inefficiency.

            Getting government out of economic regulation and propping up will hurt some people in the short run because inefficient companies and programs will fail. However, this gives more resources to fuel ideas and methods that are more efficient. Thus in the medium to long term this will have a tremendous effect of improving the economy.

            • Getting government out of economic regulation

              These guys know how to play the system like a harp from hell. The taxpayer gets the shaft either way. More regulation kills business, less regulation gets Fannie & Freddie

        • media bias ………..or is it just good business? They have to tell the people what they want to hear or they won’t be on for long. You can always go to Al Jazeera if you don’t mind the sight of blood.

          • Most cable companies have channels set aside for “education.” On those channels, you can see what’s going on outside our borders–and how we look to others. It means not watching as much Snooky and Seacrest, but it wouldn’t kill you to watch some reports from the BBC or RT or India or France. You’ll be amazed that everyone in the world is not shouting ‘USA! USA! USA!” 24/7. They have their own interests, and the continuing collapse of our international influence has to do with our inability to understand what’s important to other countries–and find areas of mutual interest. The best answer is almost never to invade and conquer.

        • Meeman — re:
          March 21, 2012 at 11:49 am
          “I find it funny that the 155 delegates available in Texas, many, if not all, of which would have been for Ron Paul, have to wait yet again for their election process.
          First it was Feb then March then April and now it’s May 29th…”.

          Spot on!!!!!!!!!!!!

          When my kids were young, we used to buy them toys from “Toys-R-Us” — great catch name!

          The best catch phrase for today’s GOP should be — “Crooks-R-Us”…..

      • I agree that Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers substantive change from the status quo. The problem is that change is essentially, to be a bit theatrical, utterly mad.

        • utterly mad.

          Yeah right, China will keep on lending us the money we don’t have forever and if they ever want it back all we have to do is print it.

          • No, Matrim is right.

            I just realized RP’s error. People DO want “change,” but if you start talking about long-term goals, they worry about what it will take to get there.

            People voted for Obama because they were fed up and wanted something different. So all he had to do is USE the word “change.”

            RP would have gotten more widespread support if he had simply focused on what was wrong, and then promise to “change” it.

            For instance, in foreign affairs, he could have specified the lives lost and amount of money spent on various adventures and giveaways: “Was it worth it?” But once he starts promising to bring troops home, the chicken hawks drum up paranoia and xenophobia, and then ending our farflung adventures seems scary.

            RP should have just pointed out the PROBLEMS (which are easy to agree with), and then promised to do what he could to bring about “change.”

            THAT is the formula for success in American politics.

  3. Robert. You can find his 59 S P E C I F I C point plan to turn the economy around on Romney’s website. You’ll have to hunt a little, but they are there. Fifty-nine points may be too many for some people to absorb; but our economy is complex, and very integrated. So, 59 points may not be enough, actually. I don’t agree with them all; but as a whole, they’re pretty good and would be very effective.

    • but our economy is complex, and very integrated. So, 59 points may not be enough, actually. I don’t agree with them all; but as a whole, they’re pretty good and would be very effective.

      Spoken like a true IRS agent.

      Nothing complex about it if one would let free enterprise work. You fail like GM you bite the dust a padlock goes on followed by an auction. Not giving shysters $900.00 per hour for years to figure out who gets what.

      • If we let GM fail, Michiganders would have lost basically all of their jobs, the auto industry would have collapsed, and we would have gone into a depression. At that time, America could not afford to lose a million jobs then.

        • The bonds issued by General Motors Corp. should recover about 30 cents on the dollar when the shares are distributed later this month, Ludtke said in a telephone interview. He expects GM’s share price to rise to $40, which implies a recovery rate of about 40 cents on the dollar,

          There were about $30 billion in bonds outstanding. Yeah widows and orphans must bite the bullet so GM can keep those $75 per hour jobs going. A $20 billion dollar gift from the “investors” in GM. Think any of them will ever buy a GM car again?

          No I never trusted GM after the Olds diesel.

      • They’re two of the same anyway. Obama and Romney are trained by the same teacher and work for the same boss.

        The American people need to wake up and ‘do something’. This take down of the USA has been planned for years. Everyone’s been napping and it’s time to wake up.

        So sad to see such a ‘once great’ country where everyone wanted to live to become such a state that it is with a reputation to back it up.

    • Last comment from the holy book of Matthew, 3:20

      Sob, Sob we are all …… well most……ok some of as will miss you.

      Now you know how Mark Twain would have felt

  4. The bias of the author of this website it so blatantly obvious its amusing. “Ron Paul will likely continue scraping by with his piles of cash as opposed to piles of votes.” What an idiotic statement to make…not to mention hypocritical. Mitt Romney has his fortune from cozyign up with special interest groups (which he has admitted) and managed through Goldman Sachs, while Ron Paul has never taken a government pay check, and earned his pay through practicing medicine. Ron Paul gets grassroots support not multimillion dollar checks form corporate fat cats. Lets not forget Ron Paul gets more cash from from active military members than all of the other candidates combined including Obama. These troops are against the establishment’s industrial military complex of war mongering policies. When is the GOP going to realize we aren’t fighting the same battle that old fashion neocons were taught and brought up to believe by the Rush’s, O’Reilly’s, and Beck’s of the world.

    I find it fascinating that you stated “piles of votes” as if you actually find the beauty contests to be relevant in any way. It has always been about the delegates and I do expect Romney to lose in the first round. No true conservative would give their vote to the most inconsistent and fake politician America has ever seen.

    • If you are implying that the bias of the author is for Romney, I think you are mistaken. The bias is against the GOP. The victory speech for Illionois (by Romney) shown on here only had a small amount of the overall speech and it didn’t look very good. I weant to Yahoo News and watched the entire video and he actually did an excellent jog.

      • All but Ron Paul can talk the talk ang tell the people exactly what they want to hear. Anything but the truth.

  5. You Ron Paul supporters are the biggest OBAMA supporters around!!!!! He must be so delighted.

    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH….sour grapes! Election after election, voters choose Mitt Romney. Yes, they keep choosing him, time and again. Oh, I’ve figured it out–the only reason Romney is ‘winning’ is because the bankers are paying off the voters! I hope to get my check in the mail any day now.

    If the tables were turned, and Ron Paul was the frontrunner, I bet you’d condescend to let the voters know just how enlightened and smart they were for choosing Ron Paul. However, since they don’t, they are given only your derision and contempt, as well as any media (unless of course the article, etc. bashes Romney).

    I really wonder whether the Ron Paul supporters on this site are secretly Obama Democrats who just find it amusing to blow smoke.

    • Data up to the Illinois contest show that every vote Romney gets costs him four times as much as Santorum is spending to win over his voters. An Associated Press breakdown shows that combined super PAC and campaign expenditures total $12.70 per voter and more than $90,000 per delegate for Romney, while Santorum’s bill comes in at $3.01 per voter and close to $29,000 per delegate, the lowest cost per vote and delegate of all of the remaining four candidates.

      • Could you believe the media propaganda last week? They tried to say that money really can’t buy votes, and they used as their “proof” that Romney lost two Southern states. But that “cheesy grit” wouldn’t have gotten 10% if he had not monopolized the airwaves.

        Same goes for Ohio and Michigan. If he hadn’t spent fifteen, ten, and eight TIMES what everyone else did, he would have lost ALL of those states, and we’d be talking about “former candidate Romney.”

        The sad fact is that votes CAN be bought, by effective advertising. I know–I’ve worked in advertising for decades. But again, while “One-Percent” Romney can outspend the kids on the GOP trail by up to 15 times what they spend, he ain’t-a gonna be able to do that in the general election. He’ll still outspend Obama, but not by the factor that would be necessary to fool all of the people all of the time. . .

          • OK, here’s the scoop on Obama primary spending versus Romney primary spending:

            In 2008, before Super Tuesday, Obama outspent Hillary by only 1.09 to 1–barely even.

            During the hottest point, in February of 2008, he outspent her by 3.71 to 1. That’s less than 4-to-1, in case anyone has trouble with decimals.

            Compare that to Romney’s 8-1, 10-1, and 15-1 ratios in Michigan, Ohio, and Missippi/Alabama (where he came in third, remember).

            Source: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_ad_spending.php

            There has never been an election season that was so thoroughly purchased.

            • Hillary should not have had to spend a dime. Everyone knew the Clinton track record. Up against a black politician from Chicago…………it was “give us Barabbas” all over again.
              Well folks, you got it, now pay for it big time.

            • Naw.

              If THIS were the year Hillary ran, after her role on the world state, she’d be a shoo-in. But in 2008, she had little elective service, her “AlBilltross,” and the fact that people really SHOULD rightly be dubious of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/(Jeb) Bush/(Chelsea) Clinton series. You know, as in Putin/Medvedev/Putin.

              And, to tell you the truth, I felt that Bill and Hillary were one (in marriage). She certainly had a role in the government in the 90s. So it felt real “Banana Republic” transfer of power from husband to wife.

              If Obama had been smart, he would have given ANYTHING to have her run with him this time. But my guess is that he felt that he’s seen as “out of the ordinary,” so he wanted the most bland, most harmless person to run with him–good ol’ “White Bread” Biden.

            • she had little elective service,

              Like the guy she ran against was a career politician. Come on now we know what it was like when the Clintons were in the White House. Hillary had more time in the political power rooms than Obama had in the Senate. (deals are brokered at DC parties)

            • Hmmm. . .

              “Elective Service”

              That would be the volunteer army, I assume

              –as opposed to “Selective Service.”

        • Okay, so your saying, Obama has the $$$ to fool all of the people all of the time? You’re also saying that EVERYONE who votes for Romney is NO MORE than a fool? Deep. However, that response was predictable.

            • You make it sound like we’re all on the dole, fat and happy. I could send you an armful of charts, showing that typical family wealth has gone DOWN since the 70s, while corporations and big investors have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

              Most of that government money goes to corporate welfare–subsidies, what-not.

              And the profit on the debt repayment goes to the One Percent.

              Even the money that does go to individuals is only to pay corporations.

              It is not that we have been bought off. We have been anesthetized by overly complicated explanations and giving conflicting views, as if they were equal.

            • And it sure looks like we are in for more of the same. Didn’t anyone know how politics worked in Chicago before they voted. Still say he gets in again. The worse you treat them the better they like it.

          • “$4.939 Trillion in hot checks can fool a lot of people into thinking things could be worse.”

            Billy, I’m sorry but I need you to explain that comment.

            • That’s how much the Obama administration has spent that it didn’t have for eye wash. (added to the national debt) (eye wash = make things look better than they are)

      • Okay, he spends more. Woo-hoo. Do you think Obama isn’t going to spend? Do you think that if all of the GOP candidates had the same amounts to spend they wouldn’t? Do you think Romney has not had an uphill battle all along–particularly because he is A) Mormon; B) Rich (they’re always suspect you know–especially if they don’t earn their money in some ‘respectable way’ off tax-payer dollars like a career politician in Washington); C) most people can’t balance their own checkbooks so anyone who is not in debt and actually CAN manage money IS REALLY suspect, and simply CAN’T do anything to decrease the national debt.

        • George Washington was the richest man ever to hold said office and he surely didn’t have the baggage the Mitt has.

          • Baggage??? Jealousy is more like it since so many can’t even lift his ‘baggage’ far enough to walk across the street!

            So let’s list Mitt Romney’s baggage, could it be:

            He’s been successful? Faithfully married to the same wife and raised a family? Served as Gov. of a state which when he left office had a rainy day fund? Took no pay as Gov. of MA? (Interesting how he easily won that state though of course the media and others on this forum said it unlikely as MA residents hated Romney because he was such a lousy Gov.) Or maybe, it’s because Romney realized that MA legislature wanted to pass a law allowing the destruction of embryos and he said, NO–even though the kind of testing they wanted to do was to find a cure for a disease his wife suffers from? I know he campaigned pro-choice, but if you call it baggage to DISCOVER where that was leading, from abortion now to the creation of embryos to destroy them, if you wouldn’t have a change of heart–then shame on you. I’m guessing the MA residents who hated him most were the pro-choice supporters and the homosexuals.

            Or could it be because he:

            Rescued the Olympics from disaster and put it into the black? Happily received one dollar as pay for his work on turning the Olympics around?

            And let’s see, some of his other baggage:

            He pays between 10-15% in tithes and offerings to his church? In one year paid a combined 30% basically in donations to the gov’t and his church combined? Has run successful businesses? THIS IS BAGGAGE?? What utter NONSENSE! Spare me the tired Democratic rhetoric, “he destroyed jobs!” Fact check the Gingrich PAC Bain capital story. Businessmen want to see a business succeed–it makes them more money! Many businesses did succeed, and YES, some failed. That is the whole theory behind a free market economy which Obama wants to either control or destroy.

            This is why he has to campaign so hard because people with their own prejudices and limited ability to give credit where credit is due, because they think it is SOMEHOW MORALLY WRONG to be SUCCESSFUL in AMERICA. Forget the fact that’s why people come here.

            Which leads me right back to all of the original reasons I listed in my previous post. However, I also think it comes down to his stance on homosexual marriage, and his support of DOMA, which is the same as Santorum and Gingrich. It’s no secret that Ron Paul would not support DOMA. However, none of the other candidates would have a serious chance of winning the nomination. So, if they get rid of Romney, just maybe it would be Ron Paul. I don’t think I need to explain any further.

            As far a George Washington, when he was alive he didn’t have baggage–the baggage didn’t appear until after he had been dead over a hundred years and someone decided to re-write history.

            • Someone should send “4” the link to the video in which Romney is violently liberal before he becomes “Severely Conservative.” Besides, what IS “Severely Conservative”? Does that mean “Uncompassionate Conservative”?

              There’s a saying here in Michigan: “If you don’t like the weather, wait a minute.” The same could be said about Romney’s “firm” beliefs.

              And, by the way, you learn more about who Romney is by is gaffes than by his speeches. When he talks off-the-cuff, he reveals how out-of-touch he really is.

            • Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[115][126] He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[115][126] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.)[126] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[115][132] Romney did so from a sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.[132]

              The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.[115][126] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship.

              Shall I go on. As for a family man, ask Seamus.

            • The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.[115][126] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average.[115]

              As for being a family man, ask Seamus

          • Easy there @4theRepublic, Mr. Malone here likes to pull chains. don’t let him get you to validate his point.
            Don’t waste time stating facts just post a video and let the wrongpolites waste their time on that.
            Wrong Paul is not really a republican. He’s a libertarian in republican clothing. His views, right or wrong, don’t coincide with republican values as much as with libertarian. With a few exceptions.
            Not that I think texicans are geniuses but I thought they were smarter than that.
            Also, I think as a rule the wrongpaul folks think everyone is stupid except for themselves and treat any and all opposing comments with contempt. If they were true republicans they would value courtesy as much. They would not be calling Americans stupid, deaf and blind just because they don’t see the world the way they do.
            If Tampa is where they are meeting then we’ll get a pretty good count of nationwide followers of wrongp and we can then pray for them to be healed. or exhorcised.

            • GoodOlBoy

              It’s a shame that the Republicans have allowed themselves to be “hijacked” by the Warmongering Neo-Conservative Movement. Republicans used to be the Party of Conservative Principles, both Fiscally and Socially. They used to be concerned about “Defending” the Constitution and “Protecting” Civil Liberties. But now, they’re NO Different than the Socialist Democrats in their “Quest” to Spend us into Oblivion and to have “The Power”. BIG Government now rules the Day with both the Republicans and the Democrats. It’s all about Power and Re-Election, and has been since the Great Depression.

              Then, Ron Paul “steps up” and says the Government needs to Return to what is outlined in the Constitution and what the Republicans USED to stand for; and he his “mocked and vilified” by Republicans, who are now “brainwashed” by the Neo-Cons.

              PS) I’m still looking for “comments to oppose”. The fact is there hasn’t been any comments to oppose. If there are any comments, they sure aren’t being articulated very well. But that’s the Strategy of the Neo-Conservative Movement. Keep the People “Ignorant” to a Constitutional Government, so the “Power Elite” (and their Special Interests) can do whatever they want – including making us “beg” for our own Slavery.

            • “mocked and vilified” by Republicans, who are now “brainwashed” by the Neo-Cons. PS)

              Give us Barabbas

            • His views, right or wrong, don’t coincide with republican values

              Yeah like trillion dollar wars financed via borrowed money from China.

            • “For the record: I would accept mistakes and errors of judgement over this self-righteous massacre of free thought.”

              @ GoodOlBoy: AMEN!!! Thank you for entering the dialogue. You have articulated your POVs well.

        • @Goethe: Yeah, I’d like to see you under the kind of scrutiny he gets for every word ever spoken and see how well you do. (Of course, he’s just following in the footsteps of any other favored GOP candidate or nominee whose misfortune it is to cross the path of the left.) Could you be referring to his ‘famous’ quote about the ‘poor’ which any idiot in America already knows the poor have a safety net, and it is the middle class who have to fall to near abject poverty to get any gov’t help? And any idiot should also have learned by now that it was taken out of context–however, it makes better news to misquote.

          So where is ‘liberal Romney’ link which you mention, but don’t source.

          @Billy, looks like you cut and pasted from Wikipedia–yes, I’ve read this kind of information before. But guess what, to support all the perks constituents want costs money, and yes, there should always be money for a rainy day. If we didn’t live in such an ‘entitled’ society we’d be a lot better off financially. Gov’t has grown and public opinion about what it should provide has increased exponentially as well.

          Bottom line: I’m voting for Romney–not matter what the left says–but, I will also vote for any other GOP candidate that gets the nomination. Unlike many Ron Paul fans, I do believe any one of them will do a much better job than Pres. Obama. I may be black, but that doesn’t mean he gets my vote.

        • @ Goeth: “You make it sound like we’re all on the dole, fat and happy. …” This is a serious assumption flaw, as is your statement. Do you think you are somehow preaching to the one of ‘chosen’ just because I support Romney and not Paul? Are you presuming I’ve never known poverty, or financial hardship? I don’t need a chart to tell me about economic hard times. This is why I find it absolutely ludicrous that some Paul supporters state that they would stay home rather than vote for anyone other than Paul in the November election. Obviously they’ll do what they like, but when Pres. Obama has increased the debt by such astronomical amounts, they’d choose to keep him in another term? Knowing full well he’d be likely to spend more?

          “And the profit on the debt….” Are you referring to bonds the government sells, or some other form of debt repayment? A loan is a loan, no matter who gives it or buys it. And I’d certainly rather our debt be held by Americans than China–if we must have any.

          Also, how is the money that goes to individuals pays corporations? I hardly think that welfare recipients are making a contribution; nor do I think are those on SS. You’ll have to be more specific.

          “We have been anesthetized by overly complicated explanations and giving conflicting views, as if they were equal.” I’ll agree to that. The gov’t has grown too big, to restrictive, too cloaked, and too unconstitutional in many respects. I agree with Paul 100% on that—although, cost what they may, I would not want to see our National Parks sold off to the highest bidder.

          Certainly, no president will ever be perfect to all of the people, all of the time. Grief, most people don’t agree on all things with their closest loved ones—let alone a perfect stranger.

          @ Billy: I read about Seamus, guess we’ll never know the full story; however, I’ve seen dogs jumping around unsecured in the backs of pick up trucks for years. (Also in the front seats of cars in their owner’s lap which has the potential to cause a serious accident.) Seems no one is reporting on that, but I guess they weren’t running for President. (I’m rolling my eyes.) Probably there was no room in the vehicle they were traveling in, the kids hated the idea of kenneling the dog and so instead they took him on the family vacation.

          I think the Obama story of sending his daughter off to Mexico is far more questionable. Woo-hoo, they sent 25 secret service agents—on taxpayer dime—to protect a US citizen who shouldn’t even be there.

          • 4theRepublic

            I find it AMAZING that you would support a “puppet” like Romney knowing that his largest campaign donors are the Wall Street Bankers who screwed over the American People by committing FRAUD which has decimated our Economy and then, they got away with it.

            If the TRUTH were TOLD, an Economic “Recovery” will NEVER actually happen. It’s mathematically impossible under the current structure of Government. (and who controls the Monetary System)

            The $16 TRILLION and Growing National Debt can NEVER be paid back. And it wasn’t just the Liberal Democrats or Obama who contributed to this MASSIVE DEBT. The Republicans are just as culpable. President Bush also “supported” Affordable Housing in 2002 and 2003 which lead to the Housing Bubble that went “Bust”. The “repeal” of The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 was Sponsored by 3 Republican Senators. So please don’t dish out any CRAP that everything is Obama’s fault. That’s FOX News are Rush Limbaugh Propaganda, which are LIES.

            For ANY semblance of Economic Recovery to begin to take place, “Deficit” Government “Spending” MUST STOP and Government “Borrowing” MUST CEASE. This “Process” can only be started through “Actual” Spending CUTS, which Ron Paul’s Plan accentuates.

            In order for confidence to be restored in America’s Free Market Economy once again, a Balanced Budget needs to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment. However, the MASSIVE Government Debt of $16 TRILLION (and Growing) is what throws the Government Balance Sheet COMPLETELY out of “whack”. This MASSIVE DEBT will PREVENT any kind of Balanced Budget from becoming a Reality – EVER! The National Debt MUST be either Liquidated or Paid Down FIRST, but that won’t happen.

            Unfortunately, there is NO “Political Will” to do ANY of this “Actual” Spending Cuts by EITHER Party. Inevitably, all this “Spending” will lead to the “collapse” of the Dollar, run-away inflation and rising prices which will cause severe poverty and the continued loss of jobs, NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT! Romney will make sure his FRIENDS, the Wall Street Bankers, are “Whole” and getting those Bonuses, but TO HELL with the rest of us!

            This summer, People will “take-to-the-streets” as they are in Europe and throughout the world. And the Government Elites, with their NEW FOUND NDAA Legislation (which Romney supports), will begin to “CRUSH” and Crack-Down” the Dissenters who want some “Justice” against the Bankers who ruined our Way-of-Life. Instead, Austerity will become the NEW American Way-of-Life. That’s a FACT!

            The $60-$70 TRILLION of the “Unfunded” Government Mandates (yet to come), will surely “sink” this ship (USA). That’s the Banker’s Plan and Romney is in on it. A GIANT RESET is planned with a NEW Global Currency and a New World Order, coupled with a Communist-Style “Banker-Owned” Military, “Privately Held” Infrastructure and Natural Resources. THAT’S what we ALL have to look forward to.

            You bet it’s Ron Paul and ONLY Ron Paul. I, for one, will write him in. Only the “Sheep” will vote for either Obama or Romney thinking that they are “different” and somehow things will Change. But as they say “The More things Change – the more things stay the Same.”

          • Cripes.

            Take a pill or something.

            No, I wasn’t referring to Romney’s quote on the poor. I was referring to EVERYTHING he says when he’s not following a script. He just has no idea how the 99% live.

            They try to make it sound like Romney is a poor-boy-made-good, but it really is not hard for rich people to become rich people. They have the contacts, the options, the freebies, the open doors–and if you don’t have to worry about your next meal, you can take the chances that make big money–especially easy if you play with other people’s money (and lives).

            I know. I’ve been up and down. It’s not just about lifestyle, the world is an entirely different place for working people, and there is no way Willard will ever be able to comprehend what it’s like.

            • @Goethe–Do you seriously think any of the millionaire politicians has a clue as to the plight of the working class? (Democrats included, despite their intense delusion that they are somehow so in touch with the plight of the poor, the downtrodden, the marginalized, yada, yada.)

            • Ha.

              That is always the response when a person has no answer:
              “Well, um, yeah, I guess that’s true, but, but, but. . .my guy is no worse than other guys!”

              The difference is clear when you hear politicians talk.
              Others who don’t CARE about the 99% at least KNOW the difference.

              Whenever Willard talks off-the-cuff, it sounds like “if they have no bread, let them eat cake.” The quote attributed to Marie Antoinette doesn’t even have to be seen as being mean.

              He says weird things because his life has been weird.

              If you’re unemployed, you don’t want to hear a multi-millionare say things like, “I like being able to fire people,” “I’m also unemployed,” “I wondered if I was gonna get a pink slip.”

              If you’re worrying about how to pay the rent or buy food, you don’t want to hear the multi-millionare say, “$10,000 bet?” “You are paying all the taxes. . .I love this job!”

              His idea of kissing up to the rest of us is to say he’s not into Nascar, but his friends OWN them, and he seems to think everybody’s wife probably have two Caddies.

          • @Darryl, regarding your youtube video–did I ever say the economy is on the upswing?? Do you think I don’t realize it is a political manipulation?

            Regardless of your assumption that I am an uneducated idiot out of touch with my own economic situation, as well as that of the US–I will still vote as I have stated. Writing Ron Paul in won’t give you Ron Paul for president–only Obama again. If he is not winning any states it seems clear he’s unlikely to be the nominee. And despite what you and many others firmly believe–that Mitt Romney will be the SAME as Obama–only time will tell whether it is based in reality or not. And of course, the same goes for anything that I believe–which is: it will not be the same, or worse.

            I think Romney has integrity, I think he will start our country on a course toward cutting back government spending and debt–and no, I don’t need to be re-directed to all the youtube videos which take 1-2 sentence statements and don’t give the full context as PROOF that he’s a flip-flopper, etc–I’ve already seen it–long before it was shown as unequivocal evidence.

            I like Ron Paul, I don’t agree with all that he presents, but he’s not even close to becoming the nominee at this point and it is unlikely he will be. My best hope is that he can become involved in solving the financial problems we face in the nation if Romney is elected as President. I doubt that Santorum or Gingrich would involve him as they have axes to grind, nor do I think he’d find it palatable to work so closely with them either. However, I do think Mitt Romney and Ron Paul respect each other. Unlike the other candidates actions during the debates, when Ron Paul spoke Mitt Romney turned his full attention to him and listened.

            • The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.[1 (Romney)

              now that I could drink to but I don’t think too many would join me.

              The name of the game is to bring home the bacon, get money into your state from out of state not just play three card monte

            • 4theRepublic

              It sounds to me that you are choosing not to believe what Mitt Romney has said during his tenure as Governor as being REAL. To say that his statements – don’t give the full context as PROOF that he’s a flip-flopper, etc–I’ve already seen it–long before it was shown as unequivocal evidence. – maybe suggests you’re in unequivocal Denial. And then you placate your statement by saying – I think Romney has integrity, I think he will start our country on a course toward cutting back government spending and debt. I mean, which is it? Integrity or a Flip-Flopper? Surely you can’t “truly” believe that Mitt Romney is a “man of steadiness and constancy”, as he says. Can you? It sounds to me like you’re voting for the “lesser” of 2 evils because you don’t want Obama to be the President. Yet, even the “lesser” is still evil. The trouble is, Romney LIES – like Obama LIES. Thus, they are both the SAME.

              Which Mitt Channel

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzidpJyayKQ&list=UUJOg6ItcROSMv4sdw_aS81Q&index=1&feature=plcp

              You really DO believe that our Economy can “somehow” recover, don’t you? I’d really like to know how you think it will – and how Mitt Romney will make that happen. And please be SPECIFIC.

              I’ll try to say this again because maybe you glossed over it when I originally addressed you. It seems these “Politicians” have the Electorate “screaming” for a Balanced Budget because Government is TOO BIG. yada yada yada – But People really don’t “understand” the NEGATIVE IMPACT that the Economy would take, if balancing the budget were to be implemented onto the Government as it’s currently being run. (In other words, the “Role” of Government MUST Change) A Balanced Budget Amendment would be fine, and it possibly could be implemented many years from now, however the “ACTUAL” SPENDING (not projected – not guessed – not formulated, but ACTUAL) Spending of the Government must be CUT FIRST for the Budget to Balance. It’s the GOVERNMENT BORROWING that adds to the $16 TRILLION in DEBT which throws the Government’s Balance Sheet completely out-of-whack. If a Politician says they can Balance the Budget, without ACTUAL SPENDING CUTS (not cuts on the proposed rate of growth), they are LYING! Thus, Mitt Romney is LYING and Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE Telling the TRUTH. If the Government were to implement Balancing the Budget, “without” cutting ACTUAL spending, then $1.3 TRILLION would IMMEDIATELY be “sucked out” of the Economy the second it was implemented. The Debt must FIRST be Liquidated or Paid Down and Government Borrowing must CEASE. In other words, Government must “learn” to live within it’s means. Will this happen without Ron Paul’s Policies being implemented? NO Freakin WAY! (Unless you want to raises taxes, LOL)

              And People also don’t fully understand how this “Government Borrowing Mechanism” actually works. The Government DOESN’T actually borrow “money” from Foreign Countries, like China. The Government actually borrows money from the Federal Reserve (at Interest) in exchange for Government Bonds (T-Bills) from the Government. These Bonds then go up for Auction with another rate of Interest and a Timeline attached. This is commonly referred to as the “Terms”. Investors and Foreign Countries then purchase these Bonds looking for a Return on Investment (ROI). And because Investors and Foreign Countries are scaling back their purchases of these Bonds as the Dollar becomes less of a Safe Haven, the FED is now purchasing the Bonds, essentially Monetizing the Debt of the United States. And as the Stock Market continues to “climb”, what people FAIL to realize is that the FED is “printing and pumping” $100 BILLION a MONTH into the Economy so the Government can pay it’s bills. It’s all a big charade and COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL.

              So to sum it up, in order for the Budget to Balance, this process of Government Borrowing needs to cease. But in order for it to cease, “ACTUAL SPENDING CUTS by the Government MUST take place. ***However, the Millstone that’s currently around the Government’s neck PREVENTING any kind of Budget Balancing is the OVERWHELMING $16 TRILLION DEBT. The Debt needs to be Paid Down or Liquidated. Will it happen? NO. It’s a mathematical Impossibility! If you want to KNOW what will eventually happen just look at this Process unfolding in Greece and the PIIG Nations in Europe. It’s comin here, Baby!

              Even though Greece agreed to a Bail-Out package (that will only last a short time), the Bond Holders in Greece are now being pressured to take a “haircut”. It won’t be long before they are “forced” into taking this haircut. We’ve seen this Process happen HERE in the United States with the Auto Industry Bail-Out in 09. Instead of the Auto Industry going through a “Controlled Bankruptcy” through the Rules established by a Free-Market Capitalist System, they were Bailed-Out in accordance to a Banker-Controlled Socialist System and the Bond Holders were “forced” to take the Loss. Thus, Fascism replaced Capitalism and the term “Too Big To Fail” was born. Fascism is the merger of State and Corporate Powers. The Taxpayer money used to Bail-Out the Auto Industry then became MORE Debt that was “heaped” upon the American Taxpayer, while the Bond Holders Lost Everything.

              All in all, the Free Market Capitalist System is Broken. In Europe, the European Economic Crisis of the Socialist system is both systemic and doomed to fail. US Banks are heavily invested in European Sovereign Debt, as well as the European Central Banks. There are TRILLIONS of Dollars in Derivatives “exposed” if these European countries Default on their Debt. The “Economic Tsunami” created by the “Default” of ANY of the Eurozone Nation’s Sovereign Debt will cross the Atlantic and Collapse our Economy insomuch that will make the Economic Crisis of 2008, look like a walk-in-the-park. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO BAIL-OUT THESE COUNTRIES AND THE DERIVATIVES.

              To give you an idea for “what’s coming” to the American Taxpayer, the “Banksters” at Bank of America (BOA) just transferred $74 TRILLION worth of Derivatives to the FDIC, which is insured by the American Taxpayer. MF Global collapsed 3 months ago and JP Morgan Chase “STOLE” Customer’s Money out of their “Segregated” Accounts, whic is against the Law. (But they get away with it) It won’t matter soon. We’ll all soon know what it feels like to be screwed by the Bankers BIG TIME – with the “blessing” of OUR Government.

              We should ALL be getting PREPARED – NOW!

              How much is a Trillion? Don’t be “lulled” – it’s a VERY BIG NUMBER!

              http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-11-how-much-trillion

          • @ Goethe, thanks–yes, I’ve heard some of those–and I hear you point. He’s definitely not the sanitized politician who can parrot what he needs to say in a way to convey–empathy, comradery, yada, yada…. even though they are thinking in their heads, YES! I fooled them! Wait til I get in the Whitehouse–I will destroy this economy with more and more restrictions, I will block opportunities for tapping into other fuel sources, I’ll have more Czars than any other President in American history, I’ll borrow trillions from China. What’s a little more debt? But, I’ve fooled them–they think I’m a brother, I understand them…. Whatever….

            • 4the:

              But it’s not about being polished. The “gaffes” Romney makes are not like the harmless and sometimes endearing flubs Bush made–simply using the wrong word, or whatever.

              Romney’s “gaffes” are about substance–and he’s clueless as to how it’s showing that he’s out of touch until someone points it out. Then he says he misspoke, or was taken out of context. Nonsense, it’s just who he is. He’d do better to “own it” and move on.

              Santorum suggested you vote for Obama instead of Romney, if it comes to that choice. That’s not a gaffe, it’s how he feels. BUT I don’t think he did himself any favors in his response–not retracting the assertion–but saying he’ll ALWAYS vote the party line, no matter how bad the GOP candidate might be.

            • What am I missing here, Romney has a record. He didn’t bring a dime into the state but squeezed the people living there for more and more. When he left the people thought so much of him they elected a democrat to take his place. Now how would anyone in their right mind vote for him. A great businessman, he knows how to play the system but as a politician he has taken a lot more than he ever gave to the state of Ma.

            • Your point is well taken about Mitt Romney’s gaffes. Do I think he has real understanding of what it is like to be poor or middle class? No, but whether you or anyone else thinks it’s a weak argument or not, I do not believe any millionaire politicians knows what that is like.

              We all have to draw the line for what we stand for. I believe this is a great nation, which unfortunately, has been on a path for decades of self-destruction as we have moved farther and farther away from the principles of the Constitution. Ron Paul is for getting back to the principles of a government which is controlled by the Constitution. That is the first reason why I like Ron Paul, the second his understanding of financial markets. But with the delegate trail he has so far, he’s ten times behind Romney, it is highly unlikely he’d be the nominee. If he were, I’d enthusiastically support him.

              I think Romney has the best interests of his country at heart. He certainly doesn’t need the money from ties to Washington. He has proven he is not in politics for the money or else he would have taken his salary as governor. He’s doesn’t need to make his livelihood as a lobbyist or by staying connected to Washington. So do I worry that he will be controlled by the banking industry, no. To me it is no surprise that he has so much banking industry support is because he has voiced his concerns over the increasing regulations which have been passed by this administration which affects the banking industry and those costs are then passed onto the consumer. Mitt Romney’s experience has shown that he does understand business and the needs of businesses. Since successful businesses are what pays the bills for most working Americans this is an important factor for most of us. Mitt Romney knows how to budget and he is for smaller government and spending cuts.

              I like Ron Paul, although I don’t agree with all of his positions on defense. However, I’m not really willing to debate about those points–if he were the president, I have no doubt he would do what was best to protect the US both at home and abroad.

              Ron Paul hasn’t positioned himself as a serious contender up to this point. It is unlikely he will get the nomination. I see Mitt Romney not as any savior to the US but that he will do the job entrusted to him with the best interest of the US as a whole.

              In my opinion, besides Ron Paul, Mitt Romney’s the best choice to make a difference in Washington this election cycle. That being said, I would still support another GOP candidate over Pres. Obama as opposed to not voting. I don’t believe any one of the GOP will be another Obama.

              Switching gears to another point I believe you previously made:

              Has Mitt Romney has changed his position on things, yes.

              Abortion: In the early 90s he stated he was pro. It was the law (although, unconstitutional), but he supported the law as it stood. However, was it the big push in the early 90s for destroying embryos to find solutions to disease? Not to my knowledge, I certainly don’t remember that it had large support. Although when it became an issue–a legislative push for creating embryos to destroy them, Mitt Romney was now looking at abortion as more than just a woman’s choice to do what she wanted with her own body.

              I don’t believe we are stagnant creatures on a horizontal line. As we learn new things we often–or should be changing our positions–more knowledge should always put us in a position of re-evaluating past positions.

              On global warming flip-flopping: Global warming certainly had been a big push and given the ‘scientific’ information that was widely being promoted MANY people bought into it. It’s supporters and the media essentially discredited the dissenting scientists by portraying them as crackpots who didn’t know what they were talking about in dismissing the ‘reality’ of global warming. Global warming is still being taught in schools.

              On TARP: Mitt Romney said he supported TARP but he, as others who stated their support for TARP, also said he did not see that the program was handled as it should have been. However, two sentence video clips taken out of context on the TARP issue then presents him as a flip-flopper. I have no respect for that propaganda–it is just deceitful.

              So, I respect your opinion, as others who support Ron Paul. I just disagree with the assumptions of Ron Paul supporters that anyone else who supports another candidate has lost their mind and are basically sheep and deserving of all other manner of derision. We all have our reasons and they are not all gathered from the major media.

            • Good post.

              I happen to think that Romney is a crass politician who will say anything he must to get what he wants. But I also think that consistency can become mindless rigidity.

              Romney’s supporters should pull out the old quote:

              “A foolish consistency
              is the hobgoblin of little minds,
              adored by little statesmen. . .”
              –Ralph Waldo Emerson

            • Yeah but he did a lousy job as governor of Ma. I can’t support a proven loser. He brought nothing to the state he governed and squeezed more money out of the residents and ran the GOP into the mud.

              It’s a question of anticipated effort vs proven results. Romney had a chance to prove himself and gave the people sky high fees in place of taxes and hit the companies big time for cash. Just what we got now and we don’t need more of the same.

            • @Billy, if he did such a lousy job in MA, then why did he win in MA by 72%? Obviously a number of people must have had a different opinion than you.

              The next Governor, at one point, had an even lower rating than Romney, and people said they felt that Romney had done a better job. Although seriously, if I had a choice in paying higher taxes regularly, or a hike in a fee that hit only periodically, I’d choose the fee hike. Of course it’d be nice to see less regulation that requires so many permits and fees to begin with. However, of course, Romney didn’t invent those structures either. It comes down to finding solutions to managing a budget, which Romney was trying to do. If the legislature is not willing to make real cuts–if the people are not willing to have less government parenting–the money will have to be raised somewhere.

            • Voting appears to be light in the Massachusetts presidential primary. In Boston about 4 percent of all eligible voters had …

              Get the picture. Now do you think he can carry the state in the general election???

              Even if he got 100% of 4% it ain’t gunna beat Obama.

            • hike in a fee that hit only periodically, Like the gas hike, or license tags for your car or tuition, property taxes. More taxes, more Regs, more debt, more war and more of the same with Romney

            • 4theRepublic

              Man! You just don’t get it. Can’t you figure it out YET that the BUDGET for the Federal Government can NEVER be Balanced? – EVER! Any “Politician” who says he will Balance the Budget without implementing “Actual” Spending CUTS – is LYING!

            • Balance the Budget without implementing “Actual” Spending CUTS

              It’s called wishful thinking and it’s been a top seller since time began.

          • Corruption will continue on Wall Street and in Washington DC with John McCain’s Endorsement and Political Campaigning for the 1% “Establishment” Candidate – Mitt Romney. Nothing will Change…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8

            House Committee Releases MF Global Email : the House Financial Services Committee has released an email from MF Global Holding’s global treasurer that says former CEO John Corzine sent “direct” instructions to transfer client funds, which is Illegal. A key MF Global official writing in an email earlier that the transfer of customer funds from “segregated” customer accounts was per JC’s – Jon Corzine’s direct instructions …

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm6GvpJLMpo&feature=player_embedded

            • Corruption will continue on Wall Street and in Washington DC with John McCain’s Endorsement and Political Campaigning for the 1% “Establishment” Candidate – Mitt Romney. Nothing will Change…

              War, War, we want War. 137 wars and counting. One more won’t hurt except the poor guys that get killed but think of the rich that will get richer.

          • An awful lot of misinformation being spun as truth here. Why are we using Leno to prove Ron Paul is the people’s choice? Really?
            And I see so many errors of fact here that it is amazing to me that anyone is amazed that anyone is amazed!!!!!
            I consider myself a conservative. But that is not the same as minimal government. To me it means RESPONSIBLE government and that means providing for the tasks that the original founders had in mind for the republic. But with reason. George Washington wanted us to stay out of European affairs but that eventually got the city of his namsake burned!
            A bridge to nowhere is a bad thing but who will build and maintain our interstates if the feds don’t do it? Will Florida and Washington fund a road that connects the two? Let economics make that choice and all roads will lead to New York and bypass Texas entirely.
            No, virginia. There is no Santa Clause. And that idea that any ONE man is exclusively the only hope of a nation of this size and power is at the very least egotistical and unobtainable. At the worst it could be a ploy to spin a third party to break up the republican party and win the election for Obama.

            • No, virginia. There is no Santa Clause.

              Oh yes there is,he is called the Fed and out of thin air they print money the built the interstates. The gas tax money they collected (real money) the spent on wars.

      • Just remember that there is a law of diminishing returns. For instance, how many votes would Romney had got if he only speant half of what he speant. It definitely would not have cut the number of votes he received in half.

        • Not necessarily.

          I have worked in advertising for decades. There is a saying that, “I know that 80 percent of my advertising budget is wasted–I just don’t know what 80 percent.”

          In the case of Romney, I would disagree with you. He outspent the other candidates by colossal orders of magnitude. If he spent FIFTEEN times as much as the other candidates and was still only able to come in third in both states, you might, in fact, infer that no amount of money could buy any more votes.

          But my guess is that if Willard had spent the same as the rest of the gang, he would have come in somewhere behind Huntsman.

      • @Surfisher–I’ve seen this before, and since they fail to give the full text of the speech it carries little weight with me.

        • 4theRepublic — re: your posts.

          By which do you stand (or are you taking lead from your Fav flip-flopper, Mitt, and stand by none) when posting these:

          March 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm —

          “You Ron Paul supporters are the biggest OBAMA supporters around!!!!! He must be so delighted. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…. sour grapes!…”

          March 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm —

          “…So, I respect your opinion, as others who support Ron Paul….”

          ——————————————————

          Your full Text can be read on the dates given (so you don’t cry “out of context”. Just the flip-flopping views you posted are SHOWN.

          Same as the above video shown: Romney’s statements are documented, thus irrefutable, only TIME condensed by removing the fluff in between (like your posts that I’ve shown).

          • flip-flopping views you posted are SHOWN. Same as the above video shown: Romney’s statements

            “If birds of a feather flock together, they don’t learn enough.”

          • @Surfisher
            I don’t agree with everything @4th posts but I have to say you did mix context here.
            In context he said he respects the fact that you have a different oppinion on how to fix our country’s problems but not how you appear to denigrade the whole republican party in your attacks on the other candidates.
            You and @Billy do that quite a bit and it looks and sounds like you don’t like the republican party. Ergo: you must like the democrat party. While I don’t agree with that last idea it does look like you might be happier in the libertarian or peace and freedom party. At least your posts seem to indicate that.

            • you don’t like the republican party. Ergo: you must like the democrat party.

              We don’t like the GOP running what looks like Democrats.

          • @Surfisher. Actually, I quite remember what I have stated, I stand by each comment. I can respect a lot of what is said, but certainly not ALL that has been said by Ron Paul supporters. IT CERTAINLY has been apparent that little respect is generally shown to supporters of other candidates as I have also previously stated and FRANKLY IT’S TIRING. (In case you missed that point when you went back to pull quotes.) And in my opinion, staying home rather than voting in the November elections, just because Ron Paul wasn’t the nominee, is certainly a vote for Obama, thus IN MY OPINION, that makes someone an Obama supporter.

            • little respect is generally shown to supporters of other candidates.

              Why should we, you guys are the reason we have this 16 trillion dollar debt and endless wars. You want more of the same and we say enough is enough. Look at Romney’s record as governor. You think he is a changed man because of what he says? Look at what he has done when he was governor. More of the same for sure.

            • 4theRepublic

              A Vote for Mitt Romney is just a vote for a different “can kicker”. NOTHING will Change except for how fast and how far the can is kicked down the road. And we Ron Paul supporters know what’s at the End of that Road – a Cliff with NO Safety Net.

              We can choose to follow the next “can kicker” down the Road and over the Cliff. Or we can choose to stand at the edge of that Cliff and yell down to all the people falling over – “We Told You So!”

            • Having fun?

              I’ve already explained what I think and why so this is both an exercise in futility on both your part and mine. I am NOT CONVERTING to your way of thinking. DO YOU GET IT??

              And BTW, if you think you’ll only be standing at the edge of the cliff while the nation goes over it–then you must be part of the 1% that won’t have to worry, cause anyone else living here–whether they stayed home and supported Obama or voted at the polls for him will surely not be able to stand by and watch without being affected.

            • 4theRepublic

              Gee… For someone who will NOT be CONVERTED to our way of thinking – you sure are echoing many of Ron Paul’s “Warnings” fairly well. However, going over “The Cliff” will be a very dangerous event indeed (and painful) – for ALL of us average folks.

              But keep following those “can kickers” as they kick that can further down the Road. And whatever you do – DON’T stand up and say ANYTHING as it reaches the precipice. You’ll surely be “accused” of being one-of-those Radical “Ron Paul Supporters”! But don’t you worry, 4theRepublic. Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, with their 1% “Gang”, will at least be “waving” at you on your way down, yelling – “Thank you so much for your Vooooote! Mr. Bernanke? Would you please pass the Grey Poupon.”

              The Dems are already having a “Field Day” with Mr. 1% – Mitt Romney. Check out their latest commercial.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z98_CMrqPc

              He’s gonna get SLAUGHTERED by Obama in the General Election. But I’m sure you’ll BLAME the Ron Paul Supporters, LOL.

              Oh and BTW – I’m having a Blast, watching this all come to pass! Gee… Maybe I’m a Poet, and don’t know it.

            • That’s why I got my money riding on Obama and hope I lose but right now I sleeping like a baby.

            • I am NOT CONVERTING to your way of thinking. DO YOU GET IT??

              No it’s you that does not get it. We want you to convert us over to your way of thinking that Romney by something he did in the past as governor can be applied to the nation and make a bad situation better.

            • NOTHING will Change except for how fast and how far the can is kicked down the road.

              Sad but true.

            • Oh but this time it is different as we know how Romney handled things in Ma.

              Right: more of the same as he extracted more from the dumb voters who put he there than the one he replaced. he can do for America what he did for Ma. (more of the same, higher taxes and a lot more regs)

          • @Billy
            “We don’t like the GOP running what looks like Democrats.”
            The problem is I do not remember the republican party being the way you remember it.
            I remember a republican party that did not let free enterprise set prices and let the pieces fall where they may.
            I remember a republican party that focused on giving tools the the under-represented to help them climb out of the hole of poverty.
            I remember a republican party that wanted to protect countries that were in danger of being destroyed by despotic dictators.
            It seems like we want a republican party that is willing to save a few pennies now at the expense of dollars tomorrow.
            It seems we think that this is the republican party that always was.
            But that party would never have fought the civil war to overturn slavery.
            That party would have sided with the democrats during the first and second world wars and we now would be speaking german on the east and japanese on the west.
            Not everything Ron Paul says is right. Not everything he says is wrong. But I still question whether he has the leadership to take us back from the abyss.
            Still, he has time to change my mind. You cant’ change it. You are not the candidate. You are not required to get hard core democrats and tea party republicans to work together. He does. And right now his challenge is to get middle of the road, moderate and far right voters to support him. And it does not even look like he is trying.
            He seems to be repeating old sound bytes and slogans without motivating the people who would be hurt by his platform. I don’t believe he’s a racist. But he can’t seem to convince the blacks and the mexicans or even the jews that he isn’t. If he can’t do that how will he fare against the russians and the chinese and the muslim nations?
            A leader is not someone who preaches at you (like Obama). A leader is someone who pats you on the back and says follow me. Work with me. Help me to help you! And you believe him. and you believe in him. AND YOU FOLLOW HIM!
            I admire his followers for doing on their own the marches, meetings and legal challenges that need to be done. I just don’t see Ron at the front where he should be. He’s sort of to the side. cheerleading.

            • First off I thought JFK was a democrat: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

              Kennedy had his Vietnam and the Republicans had there trillion dollar wars that go on and on.

              Sorry, I don’t agree as I have posted before I’m a trekker. The Swiss didn’t have the oceans to protect them during two world wars and seemed to escape the death and destruction most of the world thought was “necessary”.

              As for RP not being a leader……….he sure has a lot of followers but no, not the unions nor the food stamp people. They would be foolish to vote for him unless they could see the forest through the trees. If I were on welfare – no way- it’s Obama all the way. RP intends to abolish the dictators that now run this country by first getting rid of the agencies the control. Energy, Commerce, Education, Housing & Urban Development, & Interior

        • 4theRepublic
          March 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm

          “@Surfisher–I’ve seen this before, and since they fail to give the full text of the speech it carries little weight with me.”

          It is the SUBSTANCE that counts — not the filler in between. The reason the video shows the GIST only.
          ——————————————————–

          Mitt’s pathological lies (Flop-Flopping being the mild term) are best seen when TIME condensed (in NO WAY are they MISQUOTED)!

          Have you no shame for supporting such a duplicitous non-entity, as Mitt?

          • Joke of the Day

            A Conservative, a Liberal and a Moderate walk into a Bar……..

            The Bartender says “Hi Mitt!”

          • Gist nothing! When words are taken out of context without the full comment/thought/idea it does nothing other than serve the purpose of manipulating the viewer and it is DISHONEST. PERIOD. When explanations are given in full they frequently paint the opposite picture.

            • 4the:

              I understand your frustration and desire to have “the most electable candidate.” And I have seen phrases taken out of context, but there are also times when a statement is so self-contained that it doesn’t matter what else he says.

              These are the specific quotes, which seem pretty clear, complete, and unequivocal to me:

              “I do think there is a need for economic stimulus.”

              “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”

              “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

              “Well, that’s what we did in Massachusettes, and that is, we put together an exchange, and I’m glad to hear that the President’s copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that.

              “I don’t think I’ve ever hired an illegal in my life.”

              “I believe the world is getting warmer. I believe humans contributed to that.”
              [and even his flop: “we don’t KNOW what’s causing climate change on this planet,” which agrees that there IS climate change.]

              “I’m not speaking about the specific ballot issues.”

              “I just signed a piece of legislation extending the ban on certain assault weapons.”

              “Tarp got paid back, and it kept the financial system from collapsing. . .it was the right thing to do.”

              “I’m not willing to say, too bad for Michigan, too bad for the car industry.”

              The video didn’t attribute his refusal to sign a pledge not to raise taxes, but here are the quotes to support it:

              “At this stage, I am inclined to make that position as clear as I can but not to enter into a written pledge of some kind, and that’s true on this and other issues.”

              AND–

              “I’m not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth.”

            • HIT IT SAM: Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t- I’ve come and gone …

            • When explanations are given in full they frequently paint the opposite picture.

              Well how about you painting us a picture of some of the wonderful things Romney did as governor of Ma.

            • 4theRepublic

              Explanations? Don’t you mean the “Spin”?

              If any one of the GOP Candidates has been DISHONEST in his Words and his Actions – It’s Mitt Romney. He’s just following in the footsteps of another GOP Moderate/Liberal/Conservative Politician – John McCain. I’m surprised you can’t see that. What does Mitt Romney have in common with you anyway? Are you a member of the 1%?

          • @Goethe,
            There are gaffs. There are misquotes. There are sound bytes of statements taken out of context. And there are deliberate manipulations of statements made. All three have been on Romney’s plate. Sometimes we have to see what it is to govern to understand that it is not black or white. Sometimes we support what we don’t believe in because it protects the rights of someone who does believe those things.
            This is not a contradiction. This is governing a diverse society with differing and opposing views.
            As republicans we understand that some religious views lead to differing policies but we, as republicans choose not to pay for those things and support paying for those things we do believe in.
            If this were not so then we could program values and policies into government and would not need presidents, senators, congressmen, governors or media spinners.
            But what you are doing is a little different.
            You include the quote. You include either the context or you include the timeframe. Or you inclued the opposition. You pick and choose depending on which serves your point and not truth.
            Its a little bit like pointing to a vote for a bill that regulates duck hunting as a vote to regulate hunting when it was the only way to pass the bill that also prevented raising taxes. It does not allow for the intelligent analyzation of the vote and why it happened.
            Its a ploy the democrats use quite a bit. Remember Rodham stating that she did not have the facts when she voted for the Iraq war?
            I don’t agree with everything Mitt says. But he did show he was a competent governor. Notwithstanding the democrat detractors.
            Just as I thought Ronald Reagan was a competent governor dispite the fact that he was succeeded by governor moonbeam.

            • Nope.

              I’ve watched politics since Eisenhower’s second election.

              I’ve seen plenty of misquotes, manipulation, and taking out of context.

              But I have NEVER to my knowledge seen a Romney quote that was not portrayed exactly as he meant it–at the time.

              Can you give me even ONE example of a quote that was unfairly used? Seriously, one?

            • @Goethe,
              Since you discredit every experience made by anyone other than your narrow views maybe we should question statements like “I’ve watched politics since Eisenhower’s second election.” That would either make you a prodigy in 1957 or a very old wonder. My generation would disagree with courtesy. That means you must be about seventy?
              I don’t want to get historical. But I can. I was there too. Ok. I’m not seventy yet. have about ten or eleven to go. but I know oldboys when I talk to them. And you’re no old boy.

            • Har.

              You make no sense.

              First, I have been quite polite in my comments. Primarily, I have been finding fault with technique. I even pointed out a quote that Romney should use to defend himself. And I have repeatedly criticized the Ron Paul staff, because they don’t get that the only hope ANYONE else has of being nominated is if they stop Romney. By squabbling amongst themselves, they’re just running for VEEP.

              Second, doubting my age has to be the oddest thing said on here. The only reason I brought it up is that I’ve watched a long time, and HAVE seen a lot taken out of context, but when I asked you to come up with ONE example of a quote that was not Romney’s “belief”–at the time–no one could come up with even one. You couldn’t do that, so you change the topic to my age??

              Funny stuff.

            • There you go again.
              I gave two examples of quotes taken out of context that are well known and easily found online and in print.
              I question your age because you said you “watched politics since Eisenhower’s second election”. That was in 1957. Really? Following implies understanding and valuation of positions. Either you were a prodigy and a genius or you are at least sixty nine years old. Your grammar, vehemence and virulence betray you.
              What else have you told us that isn’t true?
              Nevertheless, I agree that the Santorum, Paul and Gingrich campaigns are focusing on each other instead of Romney and that will cost them.
              And I would agree that the Ron Paul campaign is doomed by the lack of attack and follow through by the doctor and not because of his platform.
              But then again I never figured he was trying to win. Just set up for next time.
              Only his followers seem to think he is a savior. I don’t even think he’s a republican.

            • In the old days. . .

              We had an expression, “When did you stop beating your wife?” It was a bogus charge, but it focused attention on something irrelevant. Worse yet, there is nothing the accused can say that doesn’t sound either (a) guilty, or (b) defensive–and defensive sounds guilty, so there is no response.

              I used to listen to radio shows. My favorite was “sussss-PENCE,” a radio mystery. My guess is that most of you kids don’t even remember radio drama on national networks. Such an obscure reference should be proof, but of course, it is not, because your point is not to prove my age, it’s to derail an argument.

              You say you gave two examples of Romney quotes being taken out of context unfairly. I searched the thread and cannot find them. Please stay on topic and answer that question.

            • I gave two examples of quotes taken out of context that are well known and easily found online and in print.

              Give the quotes and the Mitt’s actions and omissions a governor and dealing in Bain, the quotes seem rather consistent of Mitt’s true character.

            • Billy, I think you’re misunderstanding what I said.

              My point was that Romney’s fans are saying he is being unfairly quoted out of context, and I’ve never seen it. His quotes are out of a larger text, since ALL quotes are taken from a larger text. But the things Romney says DO show exactly what he means AT THE TIME of the statement.

              I scanned the comments and cannot find the two quotes you say you offered. But my comment was really aimed at GoodOlBoy, who was the one claiming that Romney’s words are being used against him unfairly.

              For example, Romney said he likes to fire people. I understand that he was actually talking about a company, and not individuals, but it speaks to his frame of mind–his true self. There are many ways you could express the concept of choosing the best source, or giving reward to a good company (or worker). The fact that his mind says it’s enjoyable TO FIRE people is the point.

              When he says such things, it tells how his mind works. And, therefore, it’s not “out of context” because he took one discussion and turned it into another, just as when he said he’s “unemployed.” It doesn’t matter how many words he said around it. Having a superrich fatcat jetting around and not HAVING to work is simply not the same as being “unemployed,” and it shows that he doesn’t know what the concept of “unemployed” really means.

            • ALL quotes are taken from a larger text. But the things Romney says DO show exactly what he means AT THE TIME of the statement.

              I thought you could not find the two quotes cited.(the poor and fire people) Sorry

              I’d cut him slack on the fire people one as that means someone made a mistake in hiring in the first place. I remember that from The Donald.

            • You couldn’t do that, so you change the topic to my age?? Funny stuff.

              Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

            • That was my point.

              There’s no way to defend against a ridiculous, irrelevant charge.

              So I brought it back to my repeating question:
              Can ANYONE give me even ONE example of an unfair quoting of Willard?

              Here’s an example of what I mean:
              The British pulled its people from their Iran embassy, fearing for their safety. Michelle Bachmann said, “I would do exactly the same thing.” What she was saying was simply that she agreed with the British move. But a reporter THOUGHT she meant she would do it IF SHE WERE PRESIDENT–and from there, suggested that Bachmann didn’t even know that the U.S. doesn’t even HAVE an embassy in Iran. But Bachmann never said “if I were president.” That was unfairly inferred by the messenger. It’s not what she said.

              I have never seen Romney misquoted in any way. It is NOT “taking out of context” if the idea conveyed by the candidate is a stand-alone, self-contained thought. Romney has two problems: (1) his “permanent” ideals keep changing, and (2) he is out of touch with the 99%, and when he speaks off-script, he demonstrates that.

            • His true character had been well documented as governor and while at Bain. Thus far it would appear he has been able to run away from his record.

            • Ok. I’m not seventy yet. have about ten or eleven to go. but I know oldboys when I talk to them. And you’re no old boy.

              Yeah but there are those that get there way before their time

            • When Romney was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

              Is this the guy who knows how to create jobs or how not to????

            • @Billy
              You are a pessimist. But you also pick one or two word “sound bytes” out of a statement and harp on them. And you know a little history. I had a history teacher like you once. Like Banksy trying to teach Michelangelo how to sketch.
              Tried to teach us that the United States was created as a democracy. (It wasn’t you know. Its a republic. Like ancient Rome.)
              You misdirect statements and make fun of serious thought as though you were serious about things.
              But to the point: what was the average job creation in 2005? What is the rate of job creation in massachusetts right now?
              Your word traps won’t work on me, democrat.
              Come on. I’ll buy you another drink. Then I have to go to work.

            • But to the point: what was the average job creation in 2005? What is the rate of job creation in massachusetts right now?

              I don’t argue fact, I look it up. My statement stands concerning Romney’s job creation record.

              Come on. I’ll buy you another drink. Then I have to go to work.

              Oh, I can well afford to buy my own thanks to my dad who retired at 41. I beat him out by one year as it was the job or drinking. I retired at 40.

            • Romney is now painting himself as a anti-regulation skeptic, but his record on carbon pollution is practically indistinguishable from Obama administration policy.

            • GoodOlBoy

              Man! Talk about contradictions…

              “Sometimes we have to see what it is to govern to understand that it is not black or white. Sometimes we support what we don’t believe in because it protects the rights of someone who does believe those things. This is not a contradiction. This is governing a diverse society with differing and opposing views.”

              Sounds awfully like “Libertarianism” to me. The only thing you left out was that the REASONS being that the “Powers” of the Government are “constrained” by the Constitution. (which has been “usurped” by the Neo-Conservative Movement)

              “As republicans we understand that some religious views lead to differing policies but we, as republicans choose not to pay for those things and support paying for those things we do believe in.”

              Where in the Constitution does it say that Government has to “pay” for anything based upon Religious Views?

              (Unless, of course, you’re an Entitlement Promoting Democrat who likes to site the “Welfare Clause”)

              (Or Unless you’re a Christian Republican who is “insecure” about your Religion and would prefer a Christian Theocracy over a Republic, so Islam or Judaism or Buddhism don’t “take over”)

              Facetious? Yes!

              But you see? This is the PROBLEM! Once you get the Government INVOLVED in “paying” for these types of things (instead of what is written in the Constitution), then “fights” develop between people of different Faiths, Ideologies and Beliefs. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT-OF-OUR-PERSONAL-LIVES! Civil Liberties “protect” us all – so we all can practice our religion WITHOUT Government Involvement or Interference.

            • Once you get the Government INVOLVED in “paying” for these types of things

              There is always a string or a rope attached

          • Just one @ ?
            “I like to fire people…”
            “I’m not worried about poor people…”
            Just one?
            maybe you need someone to return from the dead…
            or maybe even that would not convince you. Seriously. RonPaul people are so hard to please!
            You will not accept anything unless his holiness Ron so decrees!
            But your god is silent isn’t he? or worse. he actually defended Mitt on that one.

          • @Darryl,
            Talk about taking things out of context!
            My point was that we should not pay for things based on religious beliefs.
            But you have no understanding. only vomit. which was spit into your mouth and you re-vomit it out and expect everyone to eat it it with relish!
            If you carefully re-read my post: “As republicans we understand that some religious views lead to differing policies but we, as republicans choose not to pay for those things and support paying for those things we do believe in.” We republicans believe we should pay on the federal level for transportation, defense and interstate safety.
            Of course you are not republican so you would not understand.
            And, Oh yes,
            You claim the constitution as your source. But the constitution originally authorized slavery. Want to go back to that?
            I say this: Where the constitution is right, follow it. Where it is wrong change it. And if you can’t tell if it is right or wrong change it.
            The constitution was not written by gods. It was written by men. And sometimes they were just wrong. We are the United States of America. States which voluntarily joined to agree to a form of government that needs to grow and adapt. And it does. Continually.
            YOU want to stay in the eighteenth century! Even your god, ron can’t roll back time.

            • And sometimes they were just wrong. Such as ????

              We are the United States of America. States which voluntarily joined to agree to a form of government that needs to grow and adapt.

              Yeah but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

            • GoodOlBoy

              I see you’re following the Republican Party Line to the “Tee”. It figures. The Republicans can do NO Wrong. Only Ron Paul is Wrong. Of course he’d be Wrong if the Republican Party can do NO Wrong. (A line of circular reasoning used by “Die Hard” Neo-Conservatives to “justify” their Unconstitutional Actions) It’s to be expected.

              If We republicans believe we should pay on the federal level for transportation, defense and interstate safety, then WHY hasn’t the Republican Electorate “Risen Up” against the Warmongering Neo-Cons who have “hijacked” the Party projecting it into the BIG Government, “Spend-us-into-Oblivion” Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression? Like the Democrats, Republicans believe they can “shred” the Constitution to further their own agendas. How convenient it is to “Ignore” the sins against the Constitution by “certain” Republicans by calling words of dissent and/or the questioning of Intent – “vomit”.

              Both Parties are the SAME – in fact the Republicans are showing themselves as being much more hypocritical because of what they USED to be. Ron Paul points to these sins of straying away from the Constitution – and then he’s “mocked” and told that he’s not a Republican. This kind of reminds me of the Pharisees during the time of Christ. Ron Paul brought out this “hypocrisy” during the SC Debates. He quotes the Constitution – then he invokes the Christ’s “Golden Rule” and links this approach to Foreign Policy – and what does he get in return? He gets “booed” from the audience. LOL.

              Of course, you, like other Neo-Cons, attack the “messenger” because you don’t agree. It’s time to “change” the Constitution to fit the NEW Way of doing things. Again, all this is to be expected.

              The Pharisees did the same thing to Christ. He knew they were “closed-minded” and that their only “desire” was to “hang on” to their “Power” over the People. Christ preached “Liberty” and “Freedom” from that kind of tyranny and oppression – and pointed the People to the Kingdom of God. Thus, the Pharisees “hated” Him and attacked him. So, let’s change the Bible, too, while we’re at it. After all, it doesn’t “fit” the Neo-Con Agenda anyway.

            • Yeah, It’s become, “What we say goes” and what we did for Egypt we can do for the rest of the world. Like Iraq is now the envy of the world after the US taxpayers “invested” a trillion dollars in it. A Cynical Sham, that’s what it is and they want more of the same. Let’s take on Iran next after all the success we have had thus far. Yeah on a real roll now aren’t we. Making all these new friends in the middle east has done wonders at the gas pumps.

          • First of all
            @Goethe Behr, my point was to show you are either presenting yourself as something you are not and therefore making everything you say suspect OR you were completely out of touch with the time you lived in. Quoting a radio show is not proof unless you can somehow demonstrate that you could not have looked it up.
            I was there and I did listen to radio and I do remember which is why I, speaking to my friends, read what you say with suspicion.
            You see I remember how the democrats first experimented with loud, long winding rants about whatever in order to silence the opposition.
            You use the same terms. The same rhetoric. Almost the same syntax, slightly updated of course! You use terms like “Warmongering Neo-Cons”
            as if it was a crime to believe both sides have something to contribute.
            The Conservatives want to control spending and protect the freedom to have different views from the rest.
            And the liberals want to protect the least able to defend themselves.
            Both go too far… and not far enough. But you don’t care. You want to rail against the “killers of the constitution?” Well, a day off has allowed others to post some interesting reveals. perhaps someone will put it all together. and not twist it into rhetoric.
            And @Darryl
            And you twist the scripture into a clarion call for your position!
            Jesus was not about freeing the people from the pharisees he was about freeing the people from sin.
            It was Jesus who told the people “Do as the pharisees say for they sit in the seat of Moses but do not do as they do”
            But you don’t read the whole thing do you? Only enough to say something that seems to show you are “spiritual” and that somehow the bible proves your point. It doesn’t.
            I attack the messenger because the messenger is sent by himself and not a higher purpose, being or principle.
            You repeatedly twist what people say and toss in a portion of something else that makes you seem like you are important, wise and somehow better than the people who dissagree with you.
            You call me a neo-con as if giving me a label somehow vindicates your views of what a conservative is and what a conservative believes in.
            Clearly you know how to research and twist that research into your point of view. Clearly you have no purpose except to derail whatever candidate might be in the lead at the time.
            Did you not extrapolate the current trend and discover that unless Mitt continues to win at least 3 out of five delegates he will not win in the first ballot? Of course you did. You did the math but expected the rest of us to NOT. You would rather have us all fight among each other until there is no republican left!
            Understand this: Nothing that Ron Paul or his supporters say or do is going to give or take the nomination away from Romney AT THE FIRST BALLOT!
            The only thing Ron Paul, Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich can do is make their own positions clear and concise and give a clear choice. this is going brokerage and you know it. Only a closet democrat would attack people trying to defend what they see as the true conservative approach even if that approach is not the same as yours.
            You write as if you thought that nations should live by the laws of scripture but you don’t know scripture. What were the laws given to nations that were not given to people? Do you know? and what laws given to people do not pertain to nations?
            You don’t know. It hasn’t been fed to you yet. So you cannot vomit it out to us as if it were your own.
            Remember, both of you. You called people names because they disagree with you and then scream in horror that anyone would call you anything less that truthful.
            *the People are so STUPID
            *The only way for Ron Paul to succeed is to run as a Republican right up to the Convention – then “break off” and run as an Independent.
            *if he can’t be stopped, run Libertarian Party
            *That is always the response when a person has no answer:
            *Only the “Sheep” will vote for either Obama or Romney
            These are not the words of a supporter of the values of the party. These are the words of members of another party pretending to be republicans.
            Of all the republicans only Gingrich and Paul claimed to be trying to return to the ways of the original constitution. Everyone with common sense knows that the original constitution required TEN ammendments just to make it viable! and more followed!
            I will repeat my position in different words for those who have not already made up their minds:
            Republican values: Pay for what you buy. Defend your home and your nation at home and abroad. Allow charity to do the work of charity: do not interfere with the practice of faith. Support commerce since that is the third principle stated in the preamble to the constitution.
            Republican candidates can believe what they will as long as they do what is good for all and not just the effete intellectual snobs who have convinced themselves that they and only they can save us from ourselves.

            • I thought this was about the candidates ??? You post something good or bad about the guy you are for or against and the rest agree or maybe offer some constructive criticism.

              Now I’m for Ron Paul all the way but my money is on Obama because I think Romney will win the primary. The voters hence will get what they deserve. As I have 1/2 my money in the S&P 500 and the other 1/2 in gold, I can only hope life will go on for me as it has in the past. (that’s a lie because these gas prices are killing me)

          • @Billy,
            That too is my complaint.
            If I say this about a candidate or that about a candidate and you don’t agree. Does that make me a stupid sheep? does it mean I’m out of touch?
            NO. And that is what I keep harping on with @goeth and @darryl. If you can’t lay off the personal attacks not only do you hurt your candidate you expose your hard set views as what they are. Intolerant. And not intolerant because they are right. Intolerant because they are closed minded. Why listen for a grain of truth when you already know everything to know and no one else has anything else to offer?
            State after state I see the numbers start out favoring RP and then he fades. I can understand why you think there might be a conspiracy. But the conspirators are you. You show up with banners and threats and screaming and wonder why no on likes you!
            Better off running for a different party where everyone agrees lock-step and no one disagrees with anything the candidate says. That is not an America I want to live in.
            AND you’d best remember. I do agree with most of Ron Paul’s positions. But his followers are turning me off.

            • Why listen for a grain of truth when you already know everything to know and no one else has anything else to offer?

              We know we are 16 trillion in debt (at least) we know how we got there (spending more than we take in). We know there are two ways (maybe three) way to get out of debt.

              Could be there are other problems that this country faces but I’m a capitalist so it’s all about money. When I hear a trillion dollars the first year my ears wiggle. How can RP do it?? A cake walk, get rid of 5 do-nothing government agencies and the numbers add up. Jobs …. another cake walk for RP. Each government employee knocks off 2 private sector workers.

              Romney is going to add 100,000 more government employees. Just seems like the wrong way to go. More of the same just isn’t going to cut it. Now you want to justify the 5 agencies in question here or the 100,000 government jobs via Romney, bring it on.

    • @4theRepublic — from your post on March 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm

      “… Election after election, voters choose Mitt Romney. Yes, they keep choosing him, time and again. Oh, I’ve figured it out–the only reason Romney is ‘winning’ is because the bankers are paying off the voters!…”
      —————————————————

      There are two reasons Romney is ‘winning’:

      1) Mitt’s huge bankroll is a tremendous edge (all legal).

      2) The GOP has chosen to do whatever it takes to assure his nomination (legally, unethically, and even down right fraudulently)!

      See the shameful GOP’s actions in Maine:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBx__69pkpY

      Also, this video — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDChEDnISOw — shows a blatant outrage of another GOP delegate fraud!

      ——————————————————-

      If you, “4theRepublic”, are unable to comprehend this GOP perfidy — are you truly For The Republic…?

      • — If you, “4theRepublic”, are unable to comprehend this GOP perfidy — are you truly For The Republic…?

        One thing for sure, he ain’t the Lone Ranger

    • Sorry @Darryl,
      Ron Paul is no leader. If he were he would control his followers. And his followers are deceitful zealots. This kind of following, if successful leads to tyrany and totalitarianism.
      If Ron Paul were in control of his movement he would take control of the American system and become the new hitler. or musselini.
      Yes, the trains would run on time but no deviation from his holy standard would be acceptable.
      For the record: I would accept mistakes and errors of judgement over this self-righteous massacre of free thought.
      Ron Paul will never become president of the United States. His son though, don’t be surprized when he becomes something you don’t expect.

      • Ron Paul is no leader. If he were he would control his followers. And his followers are deceitful zealots. This kind of following, if successful leads to tyrany and totalitarianism. If Ron Paul were in control of his movement he would take control of the American system and become the new hitler. or musselini.

        I would think it would take a pretty strong leader to accomplish the above????? Certainly not Ron Paul who wants to abolish 5 rather large controlling parts of the present government and replace them with nothing.

        • Ron Paul will never accomplish any of that!
          It takes a scholar to dream. But only a leader would be able to accomplish what the dreamer dreamed.
          Ron Paul says what he says and you believe him. But he leads quietly and you follow like jackals braying at the moon! Even I would follow him if he would lead!
          Right now we need a leader. Not a dreamer. Step in! Speak out! Get the people moving! And Ron Paul is not doing any of that! He is doing a “speakers tour”.
          Go here. Make a speach. Call people fakes. Go there. Make a speach. Call people hypocrites. Go to a new place. Make a speach. Call people cowards. Repeat.
          @Billy you are an insigator. You wait until you see one of your key words and pounce.
          You don’t care if you take things out of context or make an irrellevant statement if it will make it look as if you are aloof and “all wise”
          Again. Ron Paul is no leader. If he were he would control his followers. AND HE DOES NOT.
          And you are the proof.

          • Ron Paul will never accomplish any of that!

            Oh but it will be accomplished one way or the other. We can do it the easy way by electing Ron Paul now or we can do it the hard way by doing more of the same.

          • @Billy
            Yes it will be accomplished. But I choose the slow way that doesn’t hurt the poor and disenfrancised quite so much. You have hedged your bets. Must be nice. I don’t have gold shares or precious stones or even a reasonable retirement plan. My employees make more than I do because I won’t turn my back on loyalty. When the economy hit rock bottom I turned to making garages and fixing windows instead of building homes. When it bottoms out I won’t be one of the 1% as you put it that comes out squeeky clean. Enjoy your gold. I don’t think even that will be worth anything if we cannot bring sanity back to the system.

            • My employees make more than I: BINGO

              Most government employees make more than the people they “serve”.

              People like yourself (small business) are the backbone of what America was no doubt about it. But how many parasites (government employees) can you carry. Rid the parasites the host (small business) not only survives but grows stronger.

              Romney wants to add 100,000 more……….RP wants to cut at least that many the 1st year.

      • @GoodOlBoy

        Off topic — only because I could not respond to your other posts directly.

        In 1841 in ‘The American Democracy’ Alexis d’Tocqueville warned:

        “The American Republic will endure until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money.”
        ———————————————————-

        My conclusions so far:

        Recent Democrooks = Commies; current Republicans = not so recent Democrooks; Libertarians = the Republicans of old.

        • until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money.” –

          Hey Bernie Madoff kind of did it but he wasn’t a politician so it was against some law

        • @Surfisher,
          Understandable. For every post I post fifteen posts follow. I think that is good but it is hard to follow.
          Anyway…”A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” and “The American Republic will endure until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money”
          It was for this reason that the founders of our nation did not set out to create a democracy but a republic in the first place.
          Go back in history and look at Rome. Yes. Rome.
          I don’t mean to say it was without fault. It too fell to overgrowth, abuse and weakness. But it went on for five hundred years until it split in two and four hundred years after that. Because it was not one man one vote. It was one leader for the people.
          No one with common sense believes the United States will be around forever. We just want to make it stay around another hundred years. And returning it to a republic instead of a pseudo democracy would go a long way to do that but we need a leader with a sense of history and not a poet with a vision.
          Wish we could have both but we don’t.
          ps. a visionary in my church claims that Obama will be the last US president. I sure hope he’s wrong. Too.

          • @GoodOlBoy —

            Kudos for posting this intelligent and well reasoned out post!

            I’ve always stated that we’ve lost The Republic founded (The Intelligent Few guarding against the FOLLY of the Ignorant Many) — and it’s been perverted into an unqualified Democracy (The Ignorant Many overriding by numbers alone the Intelligent Few, and thus deciding our ignominious fate as a Nation — Mob Rule)!
            —————————————————-

            As far as: “ps. a visionary in my church claims that Obama will be the last US president…” — LOL, he might just be right…since if Mitt wins, Obama will defeat him — and four more years of BO may just end us (so he could be the last president)…..

            Hoping like you, that I’m wrong, too…but I don’t think so!

          • We just want to make it stay around another hundred years. And returning it to a republic instead of a pseudo democracy would go a long way to do that but we need a leader with a sense of history and not a poet with a vision.

            And who might that be…………A corporate raider, a so so governor, or a man with a demonstrated clear vision ? ?

  6. i don’t think mr, romney will be president,pay attention to the numbers in those primaries, he hardly make 40% in the presidential run it will be ugly numbers, RICK SANTORUM IS THE BEST BUT YOU PEOPLE NOT GIVE HIM ATTENTION!

  7. Keep your eyes open on March 27th!!!

    “Congressman Ron Paul, Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, announced today that the subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine the Federal Reserve’s assistance to the Eurozone and the impact of that assistance on the U.S. monetary system and the dollar.

    “The Federal Reserve has been creating money out of thin air for forty years now,” Chairman Paul stated, “and they’ve ramped up the printing presses during these five years of crisis—all in the name of economic stability. But there are consequences to massive amounts of money creation, consequences when central banks print money, consequences when they loan it, and consequences when banks get this money and create even more money and credit through fractional reserve banking. Indeed, these Fed actions helped cause the very crisis we’re suffering from today.”

    Congressman Paul continued, “It is important for Congress to acknowledge this and to hold the Fed accountable for its actions, since they affect the value of the dollars in our wallets. This isn’t just about the Fed trying to bailout Europe; there is a fundamental question here about what fiat money does to the economy. I am pleased that President Dudley, a permanent voting member on the FOMC, will be appearing before the subcommittee so we can ask some important questions about the Fed’s involvement in Europe and what that means for the dollar and our fiat monetary regime.”

    The hearing, entitled “Federal Reserve Aid to the Eurozone: Its Impact on the U.S. and the Dollar,” will be held on Tuesday, March 27, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

    Witnesses scheduled to testify:

    William Dudley, President & CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    Steven B. Kamin, Director, Division of International Finance, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System”

    • P.S.
      Wonder what Romney is doing about this crisis — or, does he even understand the meaning of the totality of the words posted above….

      • Crisis?

        Why would Willard think there’s a crisis?

        Rich people come out of depressions and other financial crises MORE rich. They buy up what other people have lost–at a discount. To people like Willard, economic crises are like what the rest of us feel when we go to the Salvation Army store. BARGAINS!!

      • I don’t think many have even given it a thought. Only one politician even talking about it.

        Mr. Perot likes to harp on the deficit as the crazy aunt locked in the attic; to his detractors,

        Think we got the same thing with the Fed.

      • @Surfisher–Thanks for that information, but seeing as Romney’s not, nor has he ever been, a Congressman, nor affiliated with the parties involved it’s no surprise he wouldn’t be involved. I am glad to hear about Ron Paul’s efforts and work.

        @ Goethe, Romney is running for President because he DOES believe their is a serious crisis–but I guess all of that has escaped your observation–not too surprising given your bias.

        • Romney is running for President because he DOES believe their is a serious crisis-

          ROFL Never let a crisis go unexploited

          • Then the timing of this during the Ron Paul campaign could be given the same treatment. I don’t personally believe that, but I’m just saying, it certainly can be turned around as you have done as a negative for Romney.

    • Wonder what’s going to happen when the government tries to give China the same deal it gave the bond holder in GM ??? 30 cents on the dollar but GM rolls on? I don’t think so.

    • Surfisher

      This video says it all regarding what Mitt Romney thinks about the FED and the Eurozone Crisis. Nigel Farage hits the nail right on it’s head! Mitt Romney said “I’m not going to “Focus” on the Federal Reserve…”

      Determined but Delusional Eurocrats Carry On Up The Khyber – Nigel Farage

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW0C_SRbamg

      Mitt Romney hasn’t a CLUE about Monetary Policy and is Totally “Delusional” about creating Jobs! He still Blames Obama for contributing to Unemployment, when it’s the FED who is the “Main Culprit”. This just shows that he’s just a Wall Street Vulture Capitalist who “plays” only in the Arena of the 1%. People who think his “Experience” as a “Businessman” somehow “Qualifies” him to be President – are just as “Delusional” is he is…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NeSMfZW1Q

      • “Experience” as a “Businessman” somehow “Qualifies” him to be President –

        Yeah but look at (or for) the qualifications the guy has who has the job now. If the voters are dumb enough, anything is possible

    • Darryl:

      I’ve been an ad agency copywriter, creative direct, and partner for more than a quarter century. This ad is beautifully produced by strategic amateurs.

      When I saw the theme, I immediately thought, FINALLY there’s a focus. I thought it would say ROMNEY is disingenuous and sleazy, so I watched it. It’s just another ad for Ohio Art. I wish I had had stock in that company. Two-thirds of the spot tells the viewer the name, and shows really famous people holding it up. “Oh, yeah, I remember that, I think I’ll go buy one.”

      The spot is (a) WAY too subtle, and (b) has no focus. If you’re a wonk, you’ll get the EXTREMELY esoteric concept that “the other guys” are playing with toys. Cute. But a very weak message.

      If you’re Joe Schmo on the street, you’ll watch this, see famous people holding up the toy and talking about it for the ENTIRE first 17 seconds. Clever to use news images of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich selling it! But wait. Then there are words and images about the campaign. So maybe it’s really a campaign ad. But we don’t even get to Ron Paul’s NAME until 30 seconds–that’s the END of a typical TV ad. But there’s no picture of him. Which one is this “Ron Perot” guy?

      There’s only ONE front-runner, folks. The entire ad should have been about Romney’s inconsistency, with pictures of ONLY Paul, conveying consistency–and a REAL alternative. Instead, this ad gives images (even footage!) of three candidates, and people are going to tune out when it gets to the negative pictures and words, so they won’t really care by the time the Ron Paul name gets there after 30 full seconds.

      So, now that I’ve broken the “wordy” law, I’ll follow this explanation with my ad. . .

  8. SO–here’s my idea:

    (1) Begin with Romney’s guy talking about the Etch-a-Sketch, BUT showing unflattering pictures of Romney.

    (2) More unflattering pix of Romney, with a voiceover about HOW the Etch-a-Sketch works, that is, if you turn it over, the words disappear.

    (3) Image of an Etch-a-Sketch with “Ron Paul: Serious. Consistent” ON THE ETCH-A-SKETCH SCREEN.

    (4) Hands turn it upside down and shake it.

    (5) When it’s turned over, the words are STILL on the screen.

    (6) Picture of Ron Paul, with the words: “Ron Paul 2012: A serious plan to restore America.”

    THAT is a focused ad, clearly comparing front-runner and challenger, with the UNEXPECTED image of even an Etch-a-Sketch not able to shake Ron Paul’s message.

      • Ha.

        Yeah. Make it a dance about Romney,
        sung to the tune of THE HOKEY POKEY:

        You put your right hand in,
        You put your right hand out,
        You put your right hand in,
        And you shake it all about,

        You do the hokey POLITICIAN
        and you turn yourself around
        That what it’s all about.

        [THEN, you sing all the above,
        but changing “right hand” to the following:]

        2) left hand
        3) right foot
        4) left foot
        5) head
        6) butt
        7) whole self

        • Goethe Behr —

          If that was Ron Paul’s goal — to attack the frontrunner — I agree that the ad should be changed as per your recommendations (with Billy Malone’s “sidestepping” music suggestion).

          However, after watching it several times — one thing becomes inescapable. Paul’s picture is absent because he does not want to associate himself with the shell-game players (Newt and Rick), Mitt’s phiz is shown for less than a fraction of a second at the end (almost subliminal)!

          I’ve drawn some conclusions as to why, will post them later.

          • Romney is a typical smoke and mirrors politician. I posted this before but how can anyone consider him when he has to run from his record as governor:

            Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.[115][126] He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[115][126] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.)[126] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[115][132] Romney did so from a sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.[132]

            Like what else would you call it?? You take more from business you end up with less in the long run. Only difference between Romney and Obama is Romney robs from both the rich and the poor.

          • p.s.

            The ad seems to be strictly aimed at ridiculing Newt and Santorum. The near subliminal showing of Mitt’s phiz is to covertly tag him along with the other two (basically clubbing Newt and Rick over the head, and giving Mitt a pinprick).

            My take on why this ad:

            1) To take down Newt and Rick, and since Mitt is ONLY hammering on Newt and Rick, with this combined effort to end their run. Afterward, Ron Paul concentrates on taking down Mitt (who, by his patented flip-flopping, is like a mollusk without a shell — can be attacked from any direction).

            I think this would be a gamble (if Newt and Rick do not eek out further delegates away from Mitt)— since if Mitt is ‘awarded’ by the media the magic 1144, game over. On the other hand, if only Mitt and Ron Paul are left in the race — Paul’s message of RETURN to Liberty and Prosperity may finally get national exposure.

            2) Despite assurances to the contrary — The Mitt camp has made a deal with the Ron Paul camp.

            This I’d find most disturbing, since I cannot see a positive outcome for such an “unholy” alliance (perhaps someone can refute it, please, post your logical thoughts on this).
            ——————————————————

            My only conclusion is that unless there is a brokered convention (where Mitt has a CERTAIN Chance of winning) — Romney will HAVE 100% Chance of being elected to LOSE to Bama!

            Am I wrong…(I hope so)…?

            • Right.

              •And the ONLY way to get to a brokered convention is to keep Willard from getting a first-ballot win.
              •••So the goal should be to MINIMIZE Willard’s votes in each primary, right?

              •What is the result of Paul’s staff attacking Santorum and Gingrich?
              •••Best outcome is that people DON’T vote for Santorum and Gingrich, right?

              •What happens if people don’t vote for Santorum and Gingrich?
              •••They vote for somebody else, right?

              •Who is that “somebody else”?
              •••My guess is that most of the votes will go to Romney, as they have all year.
              Because if S&G are neutralized, Willard looks unstoppable. And, thus, he is.

              All THREE of these guys should be shootin’ at Romney, and he should be dodging their bullets, and as he dodges, he’ll look more like the flip-flopper that he is.

              So while I understand that you think that Ron Paul, Ron Paul’s staff, and anyone who has ever met him can’t do wrong, these guys are doing wrong, and they’re helping to give Willard the nomination. Maybe Willard will be grateful enough to offer Paul to be czar of Homeland Security. . . .

            • The Dems will be out in great numbers but most GOP’s will stay home if it’s all about Romney.

  9. If the nomination process proceeds as it seems to be proceeding…..
    Romney will fall a few votes short of the total to win on the first ballot. Santorum will come in behind him by about 10% and Gingrich will be the spoiler.
    Ron Paul due to his politics will only get about five minutes of speaking time and will likely have to decide if he will run as a third party and he will decide not to do that but will not endorse the republican candidate costing the party about 5% of its base. (not all Ron Paul supporters will abandon the party just because it doesn’t see things his way). The eventual nominee will pick the second place candidate as the running mate and the pair will make the election close.
    Whoever wins will have to face Ron Paul’s son in four years and junior will probably win the nomination and be the next president.
    In the meantime brace for civil war if Obama gets re-elected. Unless he starts to do what is right instead of what he says he’ll do. Don’t laugh; it’s happened before.

    • and the pair will make the election close.

      You assume the GOP voters will get off their tails and vote. I don’t think so.

    • Romney just like this second guy – Santorum will loose in general elections. Paul is the only chance for republican party and for own nation and he as the only presidential candidate has chance to win in fight against B. Obama. Paul is better than Obama.
      If this elections would be lost by Paul, it means that this whole republican party is a gang of corrupt clique and this his son should go to democrats, because win of scumbags like this Romney or Santorum mean that there is no possibility for normal politican to win in this party and to make normal, good, proper things for own country and own nation. He would have the better chances there in democratical party in 4 years. He will achieve this age in 4 years when politician can be president. But I don’t think that he will be allowed by this republican clique to win. Demoocrats will give him better chance just like Obama has got.

  10. @Darryl,
    We are yelling at each other from the same side. I think of myself as more practical and you as more ideological.
    1). Government needs to get out of our personal lives. True.
    2). Laws need to be fair for all people. True.
    3). Government needs to perform the duties for which it was created. (In our case: defense, education and facilitation of commerce.) True. (? we may differ on the three.)
    I just don’t think change like what we need is possible in four years. or even eight or twelve. The people of America have been corrupted by the democratic entitlement mentality and more recently by the wealthy are evil mentality. I don’t think we can get there unless we elect a series of presidents dedicated to the idea that, all beliefs aside, we must respect each other in order to work together.

    • Laws need to be fair for all people. Yeah all 500,000+ and we need every one of them or God forbid we would have to think for ourselves.

      True. 3). Government needs to perform the duties for which it was created. (In our case: defense, education and facilitation of commerce.) Could you point out to me where education is covered in the constitution.

      True. (? we may differ on the three.) I just don’t think change like what we need is possible in four years. or even eight or twelve. It can be almost be completed in one if Rom Paul is elected. One trillion dollars saved and 1 million jobs created.

    • GoodOlBoy — Firstly a START needs to be made, for the following you described to begin. Unless Ron Paul wins, we won’t EVEN get the start needed! And the following may become true.

      Here is food for thought:

      *Our Republic to end in 2012 (if BO or similar parasite wins)?*

      In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

      “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
      A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
      From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

      The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
      During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

      From bondage to spiritual faith;
      From spiritual faith to great courage;
      From courage to liberty;
      From liberty to abundance;
      From abundance to complacency;
      From complacency to apathy;
      From apathy to dependence;
      From dependence back into bondage.”
      ———————————————————–

      Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

      “Number of States won by: Obama: 19 — McCain: 29
      Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 — McCain: 2,427,000.
      Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million — McCain: 143 million. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 — McCain: 2.1
      In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
      Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”.

      Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
      “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

      If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than four years.
      ———————————————————-

      I believe Our Republic has finally been perverted into an unqualified ‘Democracy’ — The Rule of the Mob (the Ignorant and Gluttonous Many dictating what the rest must do!) — this main concern our Founding Fathers tried to ABSOLUTELY avoid when drafting the US Constitution!

      Interested in your views (if you find merit — pass it on!)

      • McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”.

        Now don’t you think Bush had a lot to do with it. This does help to explain how Obama defeated Hillary though.

    • for the rest of the world.

      Oh I think China will do just fine when we con no longer compete with them over things like oil. They got a whole lot of people with needs.

  11. @GoodOlBoy —

    Read all your posts. Agree mostly with the following qualifications:

    1) Unaware of any Ron Paul supporters that will vote for BO.
    2) Ronald Reagan became a Republican ONLY because the Democrats by that time failed to abide by the core of their original principles — so he chose the Republican Party, which represented these olden principles at that time (Reagan stayed true — it was the Dems’ principles that flipped!).
    3) The current Republican Party’s ‘principles’ have denigrated to the point where they are more akin to the current Democrooks’ dogma, than to any of the Founding Fathers’ principles stated in our Constitution.
    ————————————————————-

    Here is my take on the degradation of Principles (which by definition are Immutable):

    Compromise — worth noting its logical meaning (the degradation of principles into eventual nothingness).

    When the highest principle (let’s call it “A” for absolute) is bartered to achieve a compromise with a lower one (“F” for failure) — a compromise is reached, creating a lesser principle (call it “B” for barter).
    Thereby, the now LESSER principle “B” becomes the NEW “highest” principle.

    When “B” is renegotiated as a compromise with another low point — then “C” is created as an even lower standard NEW principle.

    Then “C” reaches a compromise with “D”…and so on.

    Reason clearly shows that continuous compromises lead to eventual disappearance of all principles.

    Yet, many think that to compromise is the way go, to GAIN SOMETHING TEMPORARILY, at the expense of something IRREPLACEABLE, the LOSS of true principles!

    • In 1841 in ‘The American Democracy’ Alexis d’Tocqueville warned:

      “The American Republic will endure until the politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money.”

  12. The REASON the “Establishment” wants Romney to face off against Obama in the Fall is because BOTH of these “Commies” support the Unconstitutional NDAA Legislation which Obama signed on New Years Eve when Nobody was watching. The complicit Republicans and the Democrats in Congress passed this Law “unanimously” to be able to order the Military to CLAMP DOWN on the People.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h9ALEoBvMYU

      • The Elitist “Political Class” NOW has the POWER over the People. And they’ll use the Military to CRUSH any Dissent. Are you ready to learn the “Goosestep”?

        • by Ron Paul

          “This week, my congressional committee will hold a hearing to examine how the Federal Reserve bails out European banks, propping up spendthrift European governments in the process. Unfortunately this bailout comes at the expense of American citizens, in the form of higher prices and diminished savings down the road.

          A good analysis of the Fed’s “swap” scheme first appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in December, in an article by Gerald O’Driscoll entitled, “The Federal Reserve’s Covert Bailout of Europe.” Essentially, beginning late last year the Fed provided U.S. dollars to the European Central Bank in exchange for Euros– sometimes as much as $100 billion at a time. The ECB then funneled those dollars to European banks to provide liquidity and prevent crises from bank insolvencies. Since the currency swap was not technically a loan, the Fed did not have to embarrass itself by openly showing foreign bank debt on its balance sheet. The ECB meanwhile did not have to print new Euros and expose the true fragility of big European banks.

          The entire purpose of this unholy arrangement was to obscure the truth: namely that the Fed was bailing out Europe with U.S. dollars.

          But why is it the business of the Federal Reserve to bail out European banks that find themselves short of dollars to pay their dollar-denominated contracts? After all, those
          contracts often were hedges taken to protect banks against weakness of the Euro. Hedges are supposed to reduce risk, but banks that miscalculate should suffer their own losses accordingly. It’s not our business if the ECB chooses to create moral hazards by providing liquidity to European banks, but why should the Fed prop up Europe’s bad decisions!

          The Fed has promised to provide unlimited amounts of dollars to the ECB, should circumstances require it. It boggles the mind. Of course when Fed officials first entered into these swap agreements with the ECB last September, they did so quietly. The American public only found out via websites of the ECB, the Bank of England, or the Swiss Central Bank.

          The Fed already has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy since 2008, and US banks currently hold $1.5 trillion of excess reserves. So why don’t American banks lend those excess trillions to European banks if they really need dollars? If US banks could earn 1 or 2 percent on those loans, they might just be interested. But they can’t compete with the ½ percent interest rate charged by the Fed to the ECB. That’s one glaring example of the harm caused by the Fed’s ability to create money and loan it at below-market interest rates.

          The Fed argues that these loans will be temporary, merely providing a little boost to get Europe over the hump. But that’s what they thought a few years ago when such lines of credit to the ECB were set to expire, only to see the Fed reauthorize them. What happens if the European financial system collapses? Will the Fed be left holding a bunch of worthless Euros? Will the ECB simply shrug and turn over the collateral it received from European banks, maybe in the form of bonds from Ireland, Italy, or Greece? Have the 17 individual central banks backing the ECB pledged their gold holdings as collateral?

          The Fed has placed a hundred-billion dollar bet on the future of the Euro, with the strength of the dollar on the line. This is absolutely irresponsible, and directly contrary to market discipline. Let private banks, European or otherwise, take their own risks. Let foreign central banks inflate their own currencies and suffer the consequences. In other words, it’s time to apply market principles to banks and money.”

          Interest in all views.

          • Now this subject is way beyond my pay grade:

            I have been told that banks use to operate via the 2% rule. That is you came in with a bag full of money, they counted it, gave you a pass book, you gave them a signature card and they would loan out your money for 2% over what they paid you interest.

            No government ID required, no social security number required, no home address & phone number required & if they never heard from you again fine an added bonus. Some carried insurance, some didn’t. Not all folded during the great depression either.

        • @GoodOlBoy — re: your post on March 28, 2012 at 2:36 am

          Kudos for posting this intelligent and well reasoned out post!

          I’ve always stated that we’ve lost The Republic founded (The Intelligent Few guarding against the FOLLY of the Ignorant Many) — and it’s been perverted into an unqualified Democracy (The Ignorant Many overriding by numbers alone the Intelligent Few, and thus deciding our ignominious fate as a Nation — Mob Rule)!
          —————————————————-

          As far as: “ps. a visionary in my church claims that Obama will be the last US president…” — LOL, he might just be right…since if Mitt wins, Obama will defeat him — and four more years of BO may just end us (so he could be the last president)…..

          Hoping like you, that I’m wrong, too…but I don’t think so!

  13. Unless Ron Paul wins, here is a likely scenario:

    1) Mitt Romney steals the nomination.
    2) Obama crushes This Flippy-Floppidy GOP Marionette and gets reelected.
    3) More Laws get quickly passed, where citizens can’t even sneeze without permission.
    4) BO uses the US Military (per Law he passed) to shoot all US Citizens who dared sneeze in the wrong direction.
    5) Money gets printed on one side of the note only — to save ink (ala 1919 Germany).
    6) The People are forced to parade monthly in front of the White House, chanting: “We can do without the Sun, but not without Obama”; “We can do without Air, but not without Obama” (ala 1950?s Stalin parades).

    Hey, is it time for us to start practicing these chants…if we want to be fed.

  14. People change in the office but more to the point. A leader is not just right. He is convincing
    So far Ron Paul has only convinced 5% of the republicans. To win the presidency he’ll have to convince 49% of America.
    To be successful he’ll have to convince 40% of the people who stand to lose the most to do things his way.
    I know he has you convinced. But he didn’t have to convince you.those were already your positions and even you hedged your bet. I don’t have investments in gold or precious metals. When this treehouse topples over I have to start over as a handyman and probably hope my son will support me when I’m old. So I want a president who can take charge when he gets into office and at least get the most important things in place because the alternative would be a people’s revolt or a civil war. Even your gold could become worthless.

    • To be successful he’ll have to convince 40% of the people who stand to lose the most to do things his way. I know he has you convinced.

      You are right on the money there. Because I have a lot to gain if he is elected and the welfare people have a lot to lose if he is elected. The government today keeps printing money making mine worth less and less. They borrow from China and when China calls in it’s marker I have to compete with them in buying goods and services. Like we are doing with oil right now. I have to compete with the food stamp people at the grocery store. Many weight over 300 lbs I weigh 170. They need I lot more food than I do for sure. But the government takes my money to buy them food.

      Like I have posted, my bets are on Obama to win as there are too few of RP supporters and too many of Obama supporters.

    • @GoodOldboy — re: interested in this from your above post

      “So I want a president who can take charge when he gets into office and at least get the most important things in place…”

      1) Name the person you want for a President (that fits your criteria).
      ————————————————————–

      “…because the alternative would be a people’s revolt or a civil war.”

      2) You may have a valid point here if BO gets reelected — but it can’t be successful since BO signed NDAA.

      (Prior to this 2012 infamy, no US military force could be Constitutionally used against US Citizens (the US Military Forces could only wage war against armed Foreign Invaders, or in overseas military actions/wars).
      The reason Clinton used in 1993 in Waco, TX the FBI, ATF, SWAT, to kill men (who may have broken the Law), and also kill and burn to death innocent women and children, that had different religious beliefs — NOT the US Military, which only stood by and did not participate.)

      Now BO, has the POWER to determine that ANY US CITIZEN disagreeing in a confrontational manner is a TERRORIST! So, go ahead and start your armed Revolution (civil war), and you ALL will be deemed Terrorists, to be crushed by the greatest Military Power on Earth — OUR OWN ARMED FORCES — obeying the dictates of the Commander-In-Chief (our current and FUTURE occupier of the White House)!

      • @Surfisher,
        I do not think you really think this out.
        “if BO gets reelected — but it can’t be successful since BO signed NDAA”
        The majority of the military is against BO. A fact that is easy to hide since military regulations prohibit public political statements by active duty personnel. The military will not be able to put down a rebellion when more than half of the military will be part of the rebellion.
        And that will happen as soon as our military are ordered to fire on or attack civilians that do not fit the profile of terrorists. When one state declares its desire to cecede from the union, beefs up it own militia and recalls everone in the military that has citizenship in that state. It only takes one other thing to happen. One more disaster of the Katrina variety. Follow that by the government inability to assist and refusal to commit the very same military to rescue and relief.
        We forget history. It happened in 1861. Remember the phrase “Brother against brother?” And this was in a less divided time than now.

        • I think we get a preview of things to come as there seem to be a few dominoes ahead of the USA. Maybe not though as we don’t get the benefit of a bailout via another country.

        • Just to clear it up. . .

          According to the Federal Elections Commission, here is the rundown of contributions by active military personnel by presidential candidate as of the end of November, when Romney was considered totally untouchable:

          1. Ron Paul
          $80,500

          2. Barack Obama
          $71,492

          3. Mitt Romney
          $12,700

          the rest of the Republican candidates garnered more than twice as much as Romney, but still less than a THIRD of Ron Paul’s total among active personnel.

          Ron Paul has received TWICE as much as all other Republican candidates, COMBINED.

          And military personnel donated to Obama almost SIX times as much as to Willard.

          Sorta puts the discussion into perspective.

          • Considering Romney intends to add 100,000 troops and Obama intends deep cuts I’d say The Mitt might better talk to a wall as to try and win the military vote.

        • @GoodOlBoy — Good post.

          A few remarks:

          1) Isn’t it much better to have the NDAA stricken down, than to allow it to stand? Will your candidate commit to this (also, to auditing the Feds)??? If he does, than I’ll reconsider his merits to get my vote (not for him) but, against BO.
          ———————————————————–

          2) Re: your apocalyptic scenario “…that (a rebellion) will happen as soon as our military are ordered to fire on or attack civilians that do not fit the profile of terrorists…”

          This is a supposition on your part (may turn out to be valid) — but why take the chance (when voiding the NDAA will remove that possibility completely)!

          P.S. Just in case, suggest you don’t wear camo, but clothing made with the US Flag pattern (doubt any US soldiers will fire on the American Flag)…. 🙂

  15. A Government Out of Control

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL157F81FAC6377D46&feature=player_embedded&v=4PQvGecMg6Q#!

    A Government Out of Control – this video explains how the government fools us with inaccurate economic data – and why it may be time to alter or abolish it.

    The Declaration of Independence states:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    The problems of Humanity can be traced to the Monetary System. Money corrupts people who are Greedy according their own selfish Nature. Whoever “controls” the Money Supply – “controls” Society. (Modern-Day Slavery)

    Also, “Google” the term Resource Based Economy. What this means is that it will impossible to have continuing growth because the planet Earth is finite. (common sense) Sooner or later we are going to consume the world and/or run out of resources. And no amount of money – nor “stupid” politicians – can do anything to fix this. The Greatest Short-Coming of the Human Race is their FAILURE to understand the Exponential Function!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

    • the planet Earth is finite.

      But a person’s mind is not. All one has to do is figure out a way to release yankee ingenuity.

    • .But don’t be “fooled” into thinking that the Republicans can do anything about High Gas Prices.

      Is that “can” or “won’t”. There are many thing either side could do tomorrow to lower the prices at the pump but it’s all about money and the more you use the more they collect.

    • baseline understanding

      I think Ron Paul has provided us with much more than a baseline understanding of what the problem is and what the solution is. Not really all that complicated either. More of the same just isn’t going to cut it.

  16. @Billy,
    At least there are some things we agree on.
    “Is that “cant” or “won’t”. There are many thing either side could do tomorrow to lower the prices at the pump”.
    And improving the economy is not as hard as some people think. It will take resolve by the people to elect a republican Senate and a president that will lead or a president that will yield. In that scenario any republican president will improve the economy and delay or even prevent total collapse.
    We cannot go on drilling in and polluting other people’s lands and waters and somehow think that we can take charge of our own energy needs. Obama does have one idea that is good. We have to wean off of oil. But how he comes to the idea that starving America and its allies of oil will do that I don’t know! Even an idiot can see that! We need to provide incentives to Americans to invent, build and operate alternative power generation systems. But keep it in America and let us compete among ourselves instead of giving money to foreign companies and watch it evaporate! Obvious? Apparently not to Obama and not to the liberal Senate.

    • provide incentives to Americans to invent, build and operate alternative power generation systems.

      Now that one is a cake walk. All you got to do is leave them alone. We had over 80 car manufactures in the early 1900’s . In stepped the government telling them how the cars had to be built and now we have three. (Not really as GM is owned by the government and Chrysler is foreign owned)

      Do you know that before you can sell a car in the use it has to be crash tested. Great idea but but the manual and the automatic version of the same car have to be crash tested individually.

      • Billy Malone —

        Other BREAKING NEWS TODAY (4-1-2012):

        “Hitlery Clinton moves to Unified Germany TODAY declaring: “I think I have a chance of becoming Germany’s next Chancellor (as long as I stop shaving my small mustache)…”.

        • She comes from the Schickelgruber side of the family. (I think they were a bunch of retards)

  17. “Obama’s IQ less than 100…!!!”

    “Nation in a Crisis to force Obama to take another IQ test today….”

    TODAY’s (4-1-2012) BREAKING NEWS:

    Reported from an acquaintance whose cousin’s friends went to Harvard with Obama — and they stated that on a college dare they all took an IQ test. Obama tore up his result upon receiving it in disgust…but they were able to see the number 93 on one of the torn pieces!

    If true — than we have a near Idiot for President.
    If you don’t believe Obama’s IQ is LESS than 100 — than force Obama to take an IQ test IN PUBLIC (so all can see what’s the World “Leader’s” actual mental capacity)!

    Other IQ test reported today (4-1-2012):

    Romney — 87 (so low only because he gave 2 possible answers on each question — one For, and the other Against…)

    Ron Paul — 155 (actual score)

    Newt — 210, making him the smartest person on the planet (but he cheated on the test, just like he cheated on his wives….)

    Santorum — 0 (may have done better, but answered all: “Jesus saves”….)

    • I never believe such stories about ANYONE. If someone can’t give me a name of the person who said it, plus a place AND date, you can be pretty sure that it’s someone’s fantasy.

      And for the record, 95 to 105 is considered “average intelligence.”

      It amazes me that people waste their energy and other people’s time on silliness such as this. In one breath, they say he’s brilliant for dashing Hillary, in the next, they claim he’s stupid.

      Focus, people. While you’re wasting time on such silliness, real issues face us.

        • The Behr might be missing a bit more than just the date. Might have to spell it out.

          I’ll do it. A P R I L F O O L

        • If you’re gonna do an April Fool, it should be significant, not irrelevant.

          It should be something really bizarre, such as the interview Ron Paul had with TV’s number one dumb blonde, Gretchen Carlson:

          She asked him, with a straight face, to comment on the “claim” that Paul wanted to have sex with Rick Perry. And when Paul said it was a dumb question, she challenged him on that, because to Gretchen Carlson, there is nothing left to be dumb.

          I mean, seriously, if she can come up with such an insane, idiotic question on a normal day, can’t you come up with something at least as bizarre for today?

          How about. . .

          In an effort to solidify his claim to the white vote, Mitt Romney has developed several characters to alienate women and minorities. The two he plans to use most are a version of the Frito Bandito (who steals government aid), and a short black kid who looks up at him and says, “Whachu Talkin’ Bout, Willard?”

  18. Ron Paul – Stolen Democracy

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TtHiA7TJUV0

    VIDEO PROOF THAT ELECTIONS ARE AND CAN BE RIGGED WITHOUT DETECTION…This may be one of the most important election fraud videos ever!

    .

    Ron Paul Draws More Than 5,200 Voters to His Largest-Ever Town Hall Meeting in Wisconsin

    Thousands brave 40-degree lakeside breeze to hear Dr. Paul speak about how to Restore America Now!

    LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul attracted an amazing more than 5,200 supporters and undecided voters to a college campus town hall meeting in Wisconsin, breaking his record of drawing large crowds to campaign events.

    The 12-term Congressman from Texas’ campus town hall meeting took place at 7:00 p.m. CST outdoors on the Memorial Union Terrace – Waterfront, located at 800 Langdon Street, Madison, WI 53706. Event organizers noted that the thousands of event attendees braved a brisk 40-degree breeze emanating from nearby lakes Mendota and Monona.

    At the event, Dr. Paul spoke to an admiring crowd about the need for constitutionally-limited government, the enduring ties between civil and economic liberties, and key elements of his ‘Plan to Restore America,’ an oft-praised economic blueprint designed to reverse the rapid growth in government, spending, and borrowing that threatens prosperity and freedom.

    Just yesterday, Dr. Paul drew a crowd of more than 2,000 people to his University of Maryland – College Park town hall meeting held inside Ritchie Coliseum.

    Pictures of Ron Paul’s University of Wisconsin town hall meeting with 5,200 people are on his website.

    • Daryll — this is spot on!

      I’ve always stated that unless you get a receipt for whom you voted…how do you know your vote ACTUALLY counted????!!!!

      Spreading it throughout, hope all REAL Americans do the same!

      Try sending it to Judge Napolitano — the only media person that cares about our nation!

  19. The Tea Party Sold It’s Soul

    The “hijacking” of the Tea Party Movement by the Republican “Establishment” is now complete.

    Many of the Tea Party Candidates who were swept into office in the 2010 Mid-Term Elections are now Endorsing the “Establishment” Candidate, Mitt Romney, for President. First, it was thought that Newt Gingrich would be who the Tea Party would “sell out” to – then it was Rick Santorum. And although Ron Paul is often considered to be the “Grandfather” of the Tea Party, he has struggled to gain a sizable share of those voters. NOW we can understand “why” this is. The Tea Party has been OFFICIALLY “hijacked” by the Republican “Establishment”.

    The two-party system has collapsed and Ron Paul is so much better than that. It’s a shame that these Republicans who are supporting either Romney, Gingrich or Santorum are “unwittingly” assuring an Obama Victory in November. Too bad for America.

    • The Tea Party supports Romney for not what he has done, but what he says he will do. Isn’t that how the last guy won. All the wonderful things he said he was going to do. But with The Mitt it is a little different as we know what he did when he was at the controls of just one state.

  20. “Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson could pull as much as 6% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way match-up with Mitt Romney and President Obama. Johnson began the 2012 race running for the Republican nomination but has wound up carrying the libertarian banner and could gain ballot access in several states.”

    If the above transpires, it is a certainty that Mitt will not defeat BO (with his flip-flopping, he couldn’t defeat him anyway, now this would assure it).

    So he needs to withdraw now in favor of Ron Paul!

    Ron Paul WILL become President in 2012 — IF, Romney becomes a Patriot, and forgoes his ego, for the Good of the People!

    Mitt Romney could become one of the greatest Statesmen in US History! He’d be the Savior of our Nation — the one that generations to come would tell their children: “Look at this statue, this is Mitt Romney, he saved America”!

    Or, he can reduce himself to just a tiny footnote…what is amazing is that his fate rests in his own hands (a very rare occurrence throughout the history of the world)!

    All Romney has to do, is to take advantage of this rarest of historical moments, and make a SINGLE DECISION!!!

    Withdraw his candidacy IN FAVOR of Ron Paul, with the following grandiose and heart-wrenching patriotic speech (to save his political skin):

    “I, Mitt Romney, will sacrifice my political goals for the Good of the People. Now I understand that only Ron Paul that can save our Nation. I agree with all he stands for, therefore, I have deemed that our Nation’s salvation can only be accomplished when Ron Paul is elected as President of the United States of America. Without regret, but with joy, I do the most honorable and patriotic deed I can — I withdraw myself from this election, and give my full support to Ron Paul!”

    One honest person is needed to bring these logical conclusions to Romney’s PERSONAL ATTENTION (not the myopic sycophants surrounding him and stroking his ego by chanting wishful thinking as ‘fact’: “You gonna win Boss, you gonna win Boss….).

    Regardless how egotistical, arrogant and narcissistic Romney may be, some semblance of reasoning of what’s best for him, should still remain in his skull. The instinct for self preservation dictates that even the smallest of minds will chose the path that leads to safety, not the one leading to disaster.

    An honest realist needs to talk to Romney one-on-one — and explain the following to him, so Mitt can comprehend it:

    1) If you don’t win the nomination, than your political career is over (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as a failure).

    2) If you win the nomination, and don’t defeat Obama — which is the most probable outcome (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as an even LARGER failure).

    Therefore, Dear Mitt, whichever gamble you take from the above, may lead to total disaster for your political career (and probably will)!

    However, here is an action you can take, Dear Mitt, that guarantees you’ll become immortalized in the annals of US History — becoming the 21st Century Savior of America (surely this carrot of success will entice Romney’s egotism to go for it — over the probable political beatings he’d receive otherwise)!

    All one needs to do, to assure Mitt’s Historical Greatness of Sacrifice for the Good of the Nation, is to present the above to Romney’s eyes alone! I urge all able to do so, to place this document in front of him!

    Send this to Mitt Romney — as an Open Letter, e-mails, etc. — the more you send, the greater the chance he’ll get to read it!

    • BO is a shoo-in if Mitt is elected to run against him.

      So, concentrate to have Rmoney withdraw from the election in favor of Ron Paul.

      At this stage only Ron Paul can defeat BO — and no-one else!

Comments are closed.