The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection

By whom, tea partiers?

You just don't get it. It's not about left and right, it's about liberty versus tyranny.

Millions of liberty activists (I don't think it would be accurate to call them "voters" after this last week!) are aware that the left/right paradigm is broken and have very high standards for whom they vote now thanks to Dr. Paul Sr.

Rand rode that wave in, and those very people had hoped he'd follow in dad's footsteps so they contributed to his campaign and got him elected.... The people with the expectations that Rand would have a perfect record like his dad does.

He has UTTERLY failed them by endorsing R$. For fuck's sake they're talking on the Daily Paul right now about supporting OBOMBA just to spite R$ after all the hell R$ put them through this year! And RAND ENDORSED THAT.

This is so incongruent with their expectations that I am more than convinced that Rand's career cannot survive this.

This is not politics as usual, because the Dems and the Repugs are not present in the equation AT ALL.

Got it?

I understand where you're coming from but the libertarians chose to operate from within the republican party and if you want to be in their party then you're gonna have to play by their rules. One of those rules being that if you want to stay in the party and have any influence in it then you're gonna have to kneel down before the party leaders and endorse whoever they tell you to endorse otherwise they'll act like you don't even exist. Remember how at the convention during the delegate count they never mentioned him Paul's name as party of the tally, or how they shutout Pual's delegates from Maine? That's no accident, that's just the big GOP machine going about business as usual.

If libertarians really want to make their own rules and hold all the cards then they'll have to leave the republican party and start their own but until then it will be politics as usual and it will be a 2 party war of left vs. right.
 


W didn't change the laws to do his evil bidding; he just scurried out of view like other normal politicians.

Huh??? So, which is it? Memory loss, ignorance, blinded by frustration, or a bit of all the above?

Sure, he was found to have knowingly killed americans, but he was never so bold as to make it legal for him to do so.

Put it into perspective a bit. One Muslim American who was in Pakistan working & training with the Taliban got a drone up the ass. Well, don't goto Pakistan and hang out with the Taliban then. It's the same as if I goto Somalia on vacation, I can't get too dumbfounded when I find myself kidnapped.

Even if W intentionally caused 9/11, Obomba is proving to be worse. Just by the bodycount alone, in fact!

haha, really? You actually believe Obama's decisions have killed more people than Bush's decisions? I have a hard time even getting my mind wrapped around how someone could think that. Here's one of many examples why:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI"]★ Shock and Awe the initial bombing of baghdad ★ - YouTube[/ame]
 
I understand where you're coming from but the libertarians chose to operate from within the republican party...
You are mistaken, sir.

The Libertarians have their own party, of which Gary Johnson is their nominee.

Ron Paul, who has no wish to win the presidency AT ALL, chose to adopt the GOP to run an EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.

At that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and even further got scared that he might actually win the presidency so had to stop campaigning back in June with over $2 Million in campaign funds left lying around.

NEW libertarians, not even aware that the Libertarian party existed yet, were brought out of all parties into the GOP... All parties excepting only the Libertarian party, because they knew what Paul was up to. ;)


If libertarians really want to make their own rules and hold all the cards then they'll have to leave the republican party and start their own but until then it will be politics as usual and it will be a 2 party war of left vs. right.
Have you seen the doc floating around here on the US Presidential debate process? I couldn't find it in a quick search but it is really worth watching if you google for it. The fact is that until this government falls, we're stuck with two parties that act as one and there's NEVER going to be any MSM coverage of a 3rd party because since Bush Sr. the only two people that could pick who gets to debate for General elections are the two candidates themselves!

Shit should be illegal, but it's not even hidden. 3rd parties do not exist to the masses, until the day comes when the masses gets their news from some non-MSM news source. :(


Huh??? So, which is it? Memory loss, ignorance, blinded by frustration, or a bit of all the above?
Matt, please don't jump the gun bro. W was horrible. I think that he was capable of giving the order to send airplanes sailing into the twin towers and the pentagon. I think he was likely the worst president up to the last day of his term. But when he did these horrible things, he did them with the fear that he might be found out one day and therefore lied to cover everything up... He basically hid in shame... Much like politicians have been doing since the stone age.

Sounds bad, sure. But when politicians hide their shame, they are not getting much worse. They pass along to the next person in that office a set of shame-standards and the next will likely hide their evildoings in shame too. If they didn't, then the next person in line wouldn't. It's called setting a precedent.

Obomba is very different. He does not see the need to hide his shame somehow. Calling himself a constitutional scholar and coming in as a progressive running on a platform of increased civil liberties all make him extremely dishonorable when he does things like keep guantanamo open or sign the NDAA. The fact that he was caught Slipping the indefinite detention clause into it and then publically asking senate to take it out before signing it in on new year's eve anyway is just a perfect example of the extreme Hypocracy.

O is setting a precedent that this country simply cannot survive for long. I mean that in the most literal & morbid sense.



Put it into perspective a bit. One Muslim American who was in Pakistan working & training with the Taliban got a drone up the ass. Well, don't goto Pakistan and hang out with the Taliban then. It's the same as if I goto Somalia on vacation, I can't get too dumbfounded when I find myself kidnapped.
You are clearly out of touch on this matter.

Inb4 Moxie fills up this part of the thread with tons of examples...


haha, really? You actually believe Obama's decisions have killed more people than Bush's decisions? I have a hard time even getting my mind wrapped around how someone could think that.
Please stop getting your news from MSNBC bro.
 
One Muslim American who was in Pakistan working & training with the Taliban got a drone up the ass. Well, don't goto Pakistan and hang out with the Taliban then.

I believe you are thinking of the Americans in Yemen who were accused of being affiliated with Al Qaeda.


Afghanistan’s Taliban Wish Al Qaeda Would Go Away

N.Y.U. Report Casts Doubt on Taliban’s Ties With Al Qaeda - NYTimes.com

Difference Between Taliban and Al qaeda





Inb4 Moxie fills up this part of the thread with tons of examples...

hogan.gif
 

By using that logic, I could say under Obama's watch, the fatalities in Iraq have significantly decreased. This entire year there's only been 1.

Anyway, I was talking about humans in general. Remember when Bush invaded two countries, one for no reason whatsoever? Saying Obama has killed more people than Bush is just retarded.
 
I think Romney is the archetypal early 21st century candidate. He's such a perfect simulacrum, I think he must have been grown in some secret lab deep beneath Wall Street.

I really haven't been paying attention, but I was surprised to see that the polls are so close. Looks like it might be a tight one in fact, with the decision coming down to a few hundred thousand half-wits in Ohio and Florida. That's a testament to the failure of Obama's brand awareness.

Then again, Romney seems to be so monumentally unappealing to so many people, he could easily shoot himself in the foot. I can't see how it really matters. What's coming is coming, regardless of which sociopath wins the election.
 
You are mistaken, sir.

The Libertarians have their own party, of which Gary Johnson is their nominee.

Ron Paul, who has no wish to win the presidency AT ALL, chose to adopt the GOP to run an EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN.

At that he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and even further got scared that he might actually win the presidency so had to stop campaigning back in June with over $2 Million in campaign funds left lying around.

NEW libertarians, not even aware that the Libertarian party existed yet, were brought out of all parties into the GOP... All parties excepting only the Libertarian party, because they knew what Paul was up to. ;)



Have you seen the doc floating around here on the US Presidential debate process? I couldn't find it in a quick search but it is really worth watching if you google for it. The fact is that until this government falls, we're stuck with two parties that act as one and there's NEVER going to be any MSM coverage of a 3rd party because since Bush Sr. the only two people that could pick who gets to debate for General elections are the two candidates themselves!

Shit should be illegal, but it's not even hidden. 3rd parties do not exist to the masses, until the day comes when the masses gets their news from some non-MSM news source. :(

Exactly, it would be nice if every single party had equal coverage and an equal chance in the general election but that's not reality. That's why the only way libertarian minded people will ever get anything they want is to operate in one of the national 2 parties and in order to operate in those parties you have to play by their rules.

No you won't get to eliminate the federal reserve, abolish the IRS, legalize drugs, cut defense spending to zero, pull out all troops from all over the world, close down the department of education/energy/agriculture/etc, reverse roe vs. wade, eliminate drone programs, or shut down the CIA all in a single presidential term but you can start somewhere.

If Rand does get into office he could shut down a few departments, reduce the tax rate or even replace the income tax with something a little more liberty minded like the "fair tax", scale back the military (as much as his powers as commander in chief allows), and at the very least you would have a president out there who is actively promoting your ideology which lends it much more credibility with mainstream voters than Alex Jones type conspiracy videos on youtube.

Or libertarians can do what they're doing now which is acting like children and demanding that a candidate be 100% pure libertarian on every single issue without any type of compromise or negotiation with the other 90% of the population who isn't libertarian minded and end up where they are right now, with absolutely nothing to show in terms of legislation or expanded freedoms for the past 4 years of the e-libertarian movement.

I don't know maybe it's just me but if I'm at somebody else's house and I'm hungry it seems much more logical to accept their offer of a single pizza slice instead of demanding the whole box and eating nothing.
 
No you won't get to eliminate the federal reserve, abolish the IRS, legalize drugs, cut defense spending to zero, pull out all troops from all over the world, close down the department of education/energy/agriculture/etc, reverse roe vs. wade, eliminate drone programs, or shut down the CIA all in a single presidential term but you can start somewhere.
This is just what they want you to think. It is the very essence of the 2-party system dupe.

Liberty-minded people demand A LOT more than the establishment would ever let us have. They'll make us fight for table scraps over many years through the system, and if we ever do win a small victory it will actually be a net LOSS because of all the new shit they've added to the complaint pile in the meantime. (Example: While we fight to remove the TSA, they sneak in the NDAA and ACTA. One step forward, two steps back.)

Politics simply does not work at all, not even in the slightest. Anarchy is the only logical conclusion. Ron works towards Anarchy, Rand does not.


Or libertarians can do what they're doing now which is acting like children and demanding that a candidate be 100% pure libertarian on every single issue without any type of compromise or negotiation with the other 90% of the population who isn't libertarian minded and end up where they are right now, with absolutely nothing to show in terms of legislation or expanded freedoms for the past 4 years of the e-libertarian movement.
I understand that we are seen that way, but there's no other choice but to keep working this way while we slowly wake more minds up to see that Politics has no place in achieving freedom. The game is simply Rigged.
 
He is the son of his father. Maybe the road he's taking is different but the destination is hopefully the same. He's young and willing to play the game, this could be his greatest strength or greatest weakness. Only time will tell, don't pass judgement yet.

"He's the son of his father"??? OK - I'm not passing judgement on either father or son (I know too little about either of them) - what I take issue with is Dynastic Politics.

Everytime I read about American politics there's some person making excuses for electing the son simply because "he grew up watching his father", which is lame. If simply watching someone work is a qualification, then staffers probably have a better idea of the stresses of the job than sons.

Also - sons are rarely carbon copies of their fathers, for the simple reason that half their genes come from the mother! Simply being "the son of his father" is not a reason to elect anyone.

There's 300 million of you but instead of giving fresh blood a chance you are putting all your blind faith on someone untested because he's got the right name or come out of the right womb? And not just the presidency but all your congressmen and senators? So a tiny bunch of families control everything?

Are you trying to create some sort of absolute monarchy or feudal system or something?

Take it from someone from the old world - absolute monarchy doesn't work. The sons are never anything like their fathers. Even if the founding member is brilliant (think William I) the descendants fall far short and never live up to their father. Constitutional monarchy can be fun - you get to laugh at Prince Harry's Vegas escapades without it affecting how the nation is governed (they're like jesters who entertain of the nation), but actual power needs to be in the hands of people with merit.

I can't think of a single western nation on earth where prime ministers, presidents or chancellors are related to their predecessors, apart from the USA.

Why have you guys given up on meritocratic politics (serious question)? I was going to blame the Kennedys for propagating this idea that the presidency should pass from brother to brother like some Saudi monarchy, (with everyone trying to form their own Kennedy-type dynasty) but then realised the problem goes back further than that, dynastic politics in the USA pre-dates them.
 
So what if Mitt has changed his stance on certain issues as his perspective has matured?

It happens to us all as we age, and as this video shows, his positions are pretty solid at this point.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i3F0YnkP0=embed[/ame]
 
you need to be dynamic in this world.

its like comparing a static html page to a php server side website
if you dont do things differently at every visit then you cannot cater to everyone.

This applies to everything but running for the presidential office. Being dynamic in politics can be used against you to hurt your reputation.
 
Skipped right over all those dead Iraqis under Bush I see.

I always laugh when I put down Obama, and a persons response is "But what about Bush!!11!!11!!!!"

Fuck Bush.

Are you that brainwashed that you think this is an either-or situation? Bush was a horrible President. Obama is a horrible President. They may in fact be the two worst presidents this country has ever had, but because they're members of different political parties you get fucking retards comparing them as if one was bad so the other must be good. Jesus Christ some of you people are fucking dense.

You want to compare numbers from Iraq then post them. Deaths have gone WAY up under Obama in Afghanistan despite what the Daily Show crowd seems to think.

Now as much as I hate Bush, I think Obama is worse - would you like to compare reasons why?
 
I always laugh when I put down Obama, and a persons response is "But what about Bush!!11!!11!!!!"

Fuck Bush.

Are you that brainwashed that you think this is an either-or situation? Bush was a horrible President. Obama is a horrible President. They may in fact be the two worst presidents this country has ever had, but because they're members of different political parties you get fucking retards comparing them as if one was bad so the other must be good. Jesus Christ some of you people are fucking dense.

You want to compare numbers from Iraq then post them. Deaths have gone WAY up under Obama in Afghanistan despite what the Daily Show crowd seems to think.

Now as much as I hate Bush, I think Obama is worse - would you like to compare reasons why?

Deaths have gone up? As opposed to 2004? You're fucking high.

Other than that, dgaf obama.
 
If you're making serious money online there is no way you're actually intending to re-elect obama...? Even if we don't consider taxes, I don't know why we'd leave that argument out but we will, the internet economy relies just as much as regular 9-5 workers on the success of the economy. CPA isn't what it used to be in the days of a good economy.
 
Deaths have gone up? As opposed to 2004? You're fucking high.

CHOFm.png


I guess I'm high as a motherfucker then. Just because the media doesn't cover the war anymore, doesn't mean it's not actually happening. Twice as many deaths in less than 4 years under Obama as there was in 8 years under Bush.

Now Iraq is a different story, but the US is not at war in Iraq anymore so that's kinda irrelevant. Neither one of those fucks has a good track record so I don't know how any sane person can defend either of them.
 
You want to compare numbers from Iraq then post them. Deaths have gone WAY up under Obama in Afghanistan despite what the Daily Show crowd seems to think.

Now as much as I hate Bush, I think Obama is worse - would you like to compare reasons why?

But the comparison is Obama v Romney - and Romney has broken with tradition and pretty much given Israel a guarantee that the USA will provide military support in a war with Iran (something Bush refused to do and Obama has resisted doing too).

If you think the Iraq war was horrendous, a war with Iran will be even worse. They were attacked by Saddam Hussein who thought a war with them would be a cakewalk because he had chemical weapons to use on them - and the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years and half a million people lost their lives, but the Iranians successfully resisted being invaded.

You'd have to be completely mad to be drawn into a war with them just because the Saudis and Israelis want you to (and think you are patsies to supply both men and money to fight it). You can't afford it for one thing. Wars are a waste of time and money - but it's a dead cert with Romney as he's given his word. Obama on the other hand seems allergic to committing American troops and money abroad. He may send a few drones but that's it.

Also, you arn't going to get allied help like you did with Iraq, afghanistan and Libya - Romney isn't popular abroad (he managed to annoy all Brits by implying the Olympics would be a failure - it'll be a cold day in hell before we send troops to help him). And the US military is over-stretched - so how to meet the allied shortfall? Conscription? I'm amazed you arn't discussing his warmongering more in this election.

I don't know if you have any other parties you can vote for in this election, but Romney isn't the answer if you are serious about reducing war deaths.
 
But the comparison is Obama v Romney - and Romney has broken with tradition and pretty much given Israel a guarantee that the USA will provide military support in a war with Iran (something Bush refused to do and Obama has resisted doing too).

If you think the Iraq war was horrendous, a war with Iran will be even worse. They were attacked by Saddam Hussein who thought a war with them would be a cakewalk because he had chemical weapons to use on them - and the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years and half a million people lost their lives, but the Iranians successfully resisted being invaded.

You'd have to be completely mad to be drawn into a war with them just because the Saudis and Israelis want you to (and think you are patsies to supply both men and money to fight it). You can't afford it for one thing. Wars are a waste of time and money - but it's a dead cert with Romney as he's given his word. Obama on the other hand seems allergic to committing American troops and money abroad. He may send a few drones but that's it.

Also, you arn't going to get allied help like you did with Iraq, afghanistan and Libya - Romney isn't popular abroad (he managed to annoy all Brits by implying the Olympics would be a failure - it'll be a cold day in hell before we send troops to help him). And the US military is over-stretched - so how to meet the allied shortfall? Conscription? I'm amazed you arn't discussing his warmongering more in this election.

I don't know if you have any other parties you can vote for in this election, but Romney isn't the answer if you are serious about reducing war deaths.

I agree with all of that, Romney is a warmongering Neocon, and his promises to Israel are what's going to get him elected I'm sorry to say. You can see where all the big banker money is going this election - in 2008 it all went to Obama, but now it's all going to Romney. That tells me all I need to know about who is going to win in November.