Is the Libertarian Party right - would Romney as President be more dangerous to America than Obama?
|
|
|||||
|
19 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
28 votes
|
|
52% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
13% | |||
Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Highlights Why a President Romney Would be More Dangerous than President Obama
A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’d make it permanent.
The National Libertarian Party issued the following statement today:
The Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare does not matter. It will make little difference to America in the short run, and no difference in the long run.
Why? Because almost all elected Republicans and Democrats are Big Government politicians – in all things – including health care. After this Supreme Court decision, they will get back to work expanding government involvement in all things – especially health care.
One thing could make things worse. Electing Republican Mitt Romney President.
Why?
Republicans fiercely oppose, and often defeat Democratic Party attempts to massively expand government involvement in Health Care – such as HillaryCare.
But Democrats usually vote for Republican Party legislation to massively expand government’s role in Health Care.
Republican President George Bush’s $1.1 Trillion Government Prescription Drug Program was voted into law by Republicans and Democrats.
Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts state government expansion into Massachusetts health care – RomneyCare – was voted into law by both Republicans and Democrats. With virtually no resistance.
A Republican-controlled House of Representatives and US Senate would oppose Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care proposals.
But a Republican majority House of Representatives and US Senate would support and vote for a Republican President Mitt Romney’s Big Government health care proposals. And most Democrats in the House and Senate would, too.
What Republican Governor Romney did to Massachusetts’ health care, a Republican President Romney would do to America’s health care.
A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’ll make it permanent.
A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama – no matter what the Supreme Court decided
Read More: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/supreme-cour...





















We KNOW O is Telling our ummmm, for lack of a better term "frenemies" to cut him slack on siding with them untill he is no longer accountable (after the election) and can help them out more.
"Rave this if you are enjoying watching CONservative heads expl...
Watching heads explode is fun!"
"The Wrong Guy responded:
Opinion: Most conservatives are poor excuses for human beings, so yeah, watching them piss and moan even more than normal is pleasurable.
TYPICAL RESPONSE FROM A MARXIST WHO SUPPORTS OBAMA
AND NOW THE WRONG GUY ASK US THE FOLLOWING:
Is the Libertarian Party right - would Romney as President be more dangerous to America than Obama?
Or is it possible that the Democrat Party are trying to do what they do best by creating unrest between Ron Paul Supporters and Republicans?
YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK? I believe that America has a Grave Enemy and they live in every City across this land called America. They follow a traitor who is a Communist and they too are all Communist because of their support for Obama.
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER COMRADES OUT THERE WHO LOVE OBAMA AND WHO LOVE TO SCREW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
TWO WORDS SCREW YOU I AM VOTING FOR ROMNEY RATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
I'm not sure on foreign policy. The Obama democrats have proven to be good neocons expanding 6 wars (Iraq they left 15,000 mercenaries behind), not closing Gitmo, not prosecuting known war criminals like Bush and Cheney, bragging about extra judicial assassination of 'terrorist' suspects and extending the patriot act with NDAA.
However, with a Romney President could they snap back in old partisan strides opposing bankrupting foreign adventures just to win votes back?
No, that would be naive, they'll support Romney's military adventures just like they supported the ones of Bush or expanded them by themselves in Afghanistan, into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya.
WW3 against Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Indonesia among others will probably happen after the elections (4 years blank check of voters) regardless who's President.
World Tribune TV
‘Puttin on the Ritz’ in the new Moscow
Share It
Digg It
Del Icio Us
Add to Facebook
Google Bookmarks
Stumble It
Twitter
Add to Reddit
Print This Post
Thursday, June 28th, 2012 | Posted by admin
Communist Party USA: Re-electing Obama is ‘absolutely essential’
Special to WorldTribune.com
By Cliff Kincaid
A writer for the Communist Party USA warns that “divisions among Democrats and a potential wave of bad economic news can combine to threaten President Obama’s re-election.”
Marxist John Case, who writes for various CPUSA publications, has written a piece, “The danger of a Romney election,” for the party publication People’s World, which warns that “re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away — or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”
In reality, the CPUSA’s endorsement of Obama for a second term is not surprising. Various CPUSA officials, including Jarv...
World Tribune TV
‘Puttin on the Ritz’ in the new Moscow
Share It
Digg It
Del Icio Us
Add to Facebook
Google Bookmarks
Stumble It
Twitter
Add to Reddit
Print This Post
Thursday, June 28th, 2012 | Posted by admin
Communist Party USA: Re-electing Obama is ‘absolutely essential’
Special to WorldTribune.com
By Cliff Kincaid
A writer for the Communist Party USA warns that “divisions among Democrats and a potential wave of bad economic news can combine to threaten President Obama’s re-election.”
Marxist John Case, who writes for various CPUSA publications, has written a piece, “The danger of a Romney election,” for the party publication People’s World, which warns that “re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away — or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”
In reality, the CPUSA’s endorsement of Obama for a second term is not surprising. Various CPUSA officials, including Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman, have openly expressed support for the U.S. president and his agenda.
Since 1988, the CPUSA has not run its own candidates for president and vice-president, preferring instead to work through the Democratic Party. Its support for Obama in 2008 and again this year has been open and outspoken.
The Case article offers a rationale, mostly on economic grounds, for getting Obama re-elected to a second term. He claims that the Republicans intend to do on a national level what Scott Walker has done as governor in Wisconsin — reduce government spending and the power of organized labor. Case refers to the prospect of a national “Walker-like regime.” Case laments the fact that “many private sector workers,” including 25 percent of Wisconsin union members, supported Walker.
In that case, as we have reported, Obama’s progressive allies were soundly defeated by Walker and his conservative backers.
Obama’s support in the CPUSA, a political entity once funded and directed by Moscow, has become an open secret, although the major media treat the subject as something not worthy of serious discussion. This silent treatment extends to the matter of Obama’s mentor, a member of the CPUSA named Frank Marshall Davis. Members of the party have known of Obama’s connection to Davis for many years, which may account for their support of the Democratic Party politician in 2008 and now in 2012. A congressional friend of Obama’s from his Chicago days, Rep. Danny K. Davis, still associates with the CPUSA and even accepted an award from them.
Obama isn’t the only Democrat getting various kinds of communist support. Workers World Party, an openly Marxist-Leninist party, endorsed Democrat Charles Barron for the U.S. House in the 8th Congressional District in New York City. However, in that primary election, which was held on June 26, Barron lost.
The Workers World Party newspaper referred to Barron, a city council member, as “a former Black Panther who continues to connect with many sectors of the progressive movement. He has marched alongside oppressed activists and Occupy Wall Street in the fight against poverty, budget cuts, foreclosures, racial profiling like stop-and-frisk, police brutality, the prison-industrial complex, and all forms of injustice at home and abroad.” It said Barron had won the endorsement of District Council 37, the city’s largest public employee union, representing 125,000 members and 50,000 retirees, and the black-oriented Amsterdam News.
The Workers World Party was investigated by the House Internal Security Committee for its support of the North Korean regime and Arab terrorist groups. But the House Committee was disbanded by liberals in Congress.
The CPUSA writer John Case has not been without criticism of Obama, saying that the Democratic President made a huge mistake by firing Van Jones as White House Green Jobs czar after his communist background came to light. Case wrote last year that Jones’ “Rebuild the Dream” campaign “contains all the elements that save the Obama presidency that discarded him, and the party that failed to come to his defense.”
There is speculation that Jones was fired because the chain of command that hired him led to the Oval Office, including Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and Obama himself.
Jones remains a major figure in the progressive movement backing Obama, however, and was a featured speaker at the “Take Back the American Dream” conference recently held in Washington, D.C. Participants in the conference included Communist Party activists Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman.
What the f*** is wrong with you?
Sheesh. What a jerk!
The Libertarian Party is the only one that has it right. We are not supposed to be an Authoritarian Plutocracy. We're SUPPOSED to be a Constitutional Republic.
As far as the voters I know, they are not personal friends so I really don't know how "like-minded" we are in general, but these are conversations that I've heard or been part of as we traveled. None of the conversations were initiated by me as I don't walk up to strangers and ask them their political beliefs.
I don't believe either you or I can be so totally sure that one way or the other is the "winning" way. People who are absolutely "sure" make me doubt the validity of results they are expecting (such as everyone who "knew" beforehand that Gore was going to win in Florida). If an election is held according to our laws, no one can be certain [in advance] who is going to have the majority of the votes.
You're correct in that you can get an idea about an election by polling. But even the most reliable pollsters have said on camera that they are often surprised by the final result. So, again, how can ANYONE state with assurity that one candidate or another will absolutely win, prior to the votes being counted?
I'm sure you must know of some GOP effort to buy someone's vote or you would not have inserted that one. But the one that made the papers where we were at the time (St. Louis) involved Obama election workers and inner city voters. There was lots of coverage on that type of activity in multiple cities.