NY Times: The Radical Is Romney, Not Ryan
Mike56
2012/10/15 18:00:24
|
|
|||||
|
21 votes
|
|
81% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
19% | |||
By STEVEN RATTNER
Published: October 14, 2012
MITT ROMNEY, moderate. That earnestly sought post-debate public image contrasts starkly with Mr. Romney’s actual positions on many issues, especially the future trajectory of government spending.
Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/the-radi...
Top Opinion
-
Annette 2012/10/15 19:38:50No, I think he is too moderate
+5Actually what I think is they are not cutting enough - but I have never been huge on govt. spending for anything other than exactly what we should be taking care of - the defense and just enough to keep the govt running, which has been broadly exaggerated and enhanced, and wrongly so. It is the wrongly's I would get rid of. We have no business in health care - no business in education - Salaries should have a set limit and no higher and only paid to Congressmen while they are in office - none of this retirement and free health care BS. - sending money to foreign countries that are knowingly against us at every turn - It is ALL BS!! I could go on, but we need to cut way back - way - way - way back!!! What we have now is a runaway train nearing a cliff and it needs to be stopped immediately if not sooner.
Their talking point after the last debate was to make a big to do about nothing-criticizing Romney for not being specific enough for them, when they don't care at all about anything he says.
Reason? Diversion from Obama's dismal track record of FAILURE!!!
Former Obama car czar Steven Rattner charged in pay-for-play scheme
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 18, 2010; 10:47 PM
State and federal authorities on Thursday charged former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner with participating in a "pay-for-play" scheme to win business from New York state's pension fund, and sought more than $30 million in penalties.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Rattner for $26 million and sought to ban him from working on Wall Street permanently. Rattner, meanwhile, agreed to settle a suit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission by paying $6.2 million and accepting a two-year ban from Wall Street.
He wants to cut deficit spending more than Obama does. This doesn't put him in the ballpark of "fiscally conservative."
This might qualify him as less flaming liberal than Obama. That really isn't saying much.
A fiscal conservative would point out that the US is going bankrupt. All our (and our children's) money is being funneled into the DoD, social security, health and human services, and interest on the national debt. Everything else that anyone even talks about cutting is just a drop in the bucket.
Step One is admitting that Monopoly money based on hopes and dreams is worthless. End the Federal Reserve. Cut off Congress' unlimited access to the money printing press. Part of the entire point to the Constitution was to switch to a fiscally sound money system.
Admitting this is probably political suicide. But anyone who pretends otherwise is not a fiscal conservative.
The only real difference is who spends the next 4 years taking vacations on Air Force One.
If the DNC happens to agree with me, it'll probably be a first. I thought they were playing the game of pretending that Obama and Romney are substantially different. But apparently you have more time to waste listening to their talking points than I, so I won't argue about that point.
I stand by what I wrote earlier. You are truly a despicably vile human being.
Obama's not "my" president by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that you'd support Obamalite just emphasizes the fact that he's yours. And your statist komrades.
I truly hope that someday you'll get the opportunity to get a glimpse of what it means to live in a free country. So far, you just show your complete cluelessness.
I have yet to see anyone come up with a substantial policy difference between the two.
As before, you don't seem to have anything resembling facts or logic to back up your stupid prejudices and laughable insults.
You really should do some research into idea of "freedom." It's pretty interesting.
I point out that republicans are as much at fault for Amerika's current mess as democrats, and you imply that I'm colluding with the people who are "disproportionally [sic] attacking Republicans".
Romney is a flaming statist who never had a serious chance of winning this election. If, by some miracle, he had, he would not have been significantly different than Obama.
Using your analogy, I was both in the water and out of it. You are spoiled by always using the water and it never comes into your brain what you are going to go through because of your own stubbornness and ignorance. Unlike you, I do know.
With capitalists, even moderate (Romney is not that "moderate", BTW), you always can undo the damage. Contrary to that, the "liberals's" caused harm is almost impossible to reverse, because it is intentionally "fundamental" as Al-Obama promised. I am afraid you still didn't get it.
Romney's far from "moderate." He's a flaming big-government statist. Just like Obama.
You keep babbling that the "Demn playbook" agrees with me that "Obama's a socialist war-monger. Pretty much exactly like Romney." If this is true, it shouldn't take you any effort to actually provide a link or two to support your assertion.
I grew up in a country that was mostly free. I've watched it drift over to match the horror stories my mother used to scare me with about the Soviet Union. We haven't reached that extreme yet, but at this point it's just a matter of degree.
Republicans are every bit as guilty here as democrats. Maybe more so, since they pay lip service to the Constitution and pretend they actually care about freedom. At least the democrats are mostly honest about wanting to live in a police state.
I'm quite aware of just how nasty things are likely to get. It seems like the biggest difference between us is that you're stupid enough to believe the republicans' lies. Well, that and the fact that you're an obnoxious moron who deliberately tries to make other people hate him.
(I, OTOH, just make other people hate me through natural talent).
And not everybody hates you - the Demns love you.
They're both hoplophobes. They both love the federal reserve, Central Planning, and corporate bailouts. They both love the NDAA and the Patriot Act. They both love the power the State has usurped by making people like you wet their beds over "terrorists". They both love high taxes and giant deficits. They're both in favor of socialist health care. Neither cares about the Constitution, private property, or individual liberty. Neither has a clue about economics or the free market. They're both puppets dancing on the strings of their corporate masters.
Come on, Comrade. If those are democrat talking points, then you should be able to come up with at least one link that shows them agreeing with me.
They don't care whether you "agree" with them or not -they need you to keep "conservatives" out of voting boths - and you prove to be extremely instrumental. As I've said: enjoy the show and learn the differences in hard way.
Lesson Two: The voting "boths [sic]" don't matter. I'm guessing you already know this. Since you've shown repeatedly that you are a Statist who hates individual freedom. By the time the general populace gets to the booths, the decisions have already been made at the Party level.
The past election is a case in point.
The idea that Romney was any different than Obama proves that you don't have a clue about basic ideas like individual freedom or the free market.
We were both brainwashed as children. I got the idea that it's preferable for people to swim or sink on their own. You got the idea that liberals (your terminology) who pretend to buy into that and claim to be "conservatives" are preferable to the open liberals who promise that the State won't allow anyone to sink. While clearly ignoring the actual sinkers.
Get a clue about freedom. Romney wasn't any better than Obama.
Sorry, but your stubbornness wouldn't allow you to get what I am talkin about. It is as if you equated a somehow corrupt City Hall to an aggressive alien invasion.
The government monitors all of our communications. The police will stop us on the street and randomly ask us for our papers. Or torture us for not showing them the proper respect. If one of us makes the wrong bureaucrat angry enough, we get thrown into prison without trial as an enemy of the State. Or shipped off to a friendly place like Egypt to be tortured. Or maybe just sentenced to assassination. All because we're wetting our collective pants in terror over some guys with turbans and home-made bombs hiding in caves somewhere across an ocean.
For that matter, I'm aware of another alternative. One where there's a mostly-free market, we could mostly trust the cops, and most of the spying involved toppling freely elected governments in favor of friendly dictators. Because we were wetting our collective pants over a couple of super powers that had an inconceivable array of ICBMs ready to turn the entire planet into a sheet of radioactive glass.
Neither one really qualifies as a free country. But the latter example seems to be a lot closer than anything you've ever lived in.
Yes, I know that it can and does get much, much worse. The point to America isn't "well, at least we aren't as bad as them." The point is "how can we be more free tomorrow than we are today?"
BTW, following your logic, we have to have the 100% uneployment, because any hiree (including Presidents we the people hire) is very far from perfect.
No bureaucrat in America has to be angry to turn us into "GULAG dust." Declare someone an enemy combatant. They either get a death sentence or imprisonment for life without a trial. The imprisonment is most likely nicer than what even Stalin dished out (which, according to all accounts, was much worse than anything you could have experienced).
History shows the "consequencies [sic]" of my "childish" attitude. Eventually the tyrants clamp down on the people who dare to defy them. Sooner or later, either the slaves revolt (usually to be either slaughtered or set up a worse tyranny) or the bureaucracy collapses under the weight of its own inefficiency.
You really should read up on logical fallacies. Constantly striving for improvement is very different than throwing out anything that doesn't match inhuman and unattainable standards.
You remind me very much of the character Javert. I really can't expect you to have much of a clue about humanity. My forgiveness and understanding don't mean much, but you have it.
Everything that is genuine mean much to me - and you are right: yours doesn't.