Romney: Any cons care to explain why?

[Kaonohi]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

Ron, you seem to think I'm just against Obama, but if you look at my posts you will see I am fair and balanced; I'm against all major political parties equally. I'm not a conservative, I'm a radical.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

Ron, you seem to think I'm just against Obama, but if you look at my posts you will see I am fair and balanced.

That's what I said in my last post. Let's leave it to the cons to address the op.

[tutusue]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

Ron, it appears you're just looking for opinions to attack. Why not allow republicans to express their views instead of baiting them with this thread? I sincerely doubt any member of HT will have their vote swayed by any post to this thread or other political threads in this forum. Please back off...stop the name calling...stop the attacks...sit back and learn instead of going into the knee-jerk reaction. We already know you don't agree. I don't agree either. We have the freedom to vote for who we want. God Bless America.

[matapule]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

Ron, it appears you're just looking for opinions to attack. Why not allow republicans to express their views instead of baiting them with this thread? I sincerely doubt any member of HT will have their vote swayed by any post to this thread or other political threads in this forum. Please back off...stop the name calling...stop the attacks...sit back and learn instead of going into the knee-jerk reaction. We already know you don't agree. I don't agree either. We have the freedom to vote for who we want. God Bless America.

When Tutu laulau, matapule know when keep mouf shut!

[matapule]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

And to quote one of my favorite HT posters:

I miss Auntie Pupule too. Matapule hope she is well.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Romney: Any cons care to explain why?

TS, have you seen any surfacing lately to express even one opinion or reply?
Testing the waters is fair game, and a little enlightenment from someone not completely blindsided by baloney would be interesting.
But, we know why they don't, and probably won't.

BTW, I think the Eastwood debacle was Clint's way of being fair and balanced. Works for me!

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Any cons care to explain why?

...if ya use wacky bait, ya oughta expect wacky catches...

Now, now. Let's be nice. Trolls are people too, y'know.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Romney: Any cons care to explain why?

TS, have you seen any surfacing lately to express even one opinion or reply? --- But, we know why they don't, and probably won't.

For the same reason few amongst us would knowingly walk through a door that is labeled: FREE PUNCHES IN THE NOSE - INQUIRE WITHIN

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Romney: Any cons care to explain why?

For the same reason few amongst us would knowingly walk through a door that is labeled: FREE PUNCHES IN THE NOSE - INQUIRE WITHIN

I'd be kicking the door in if they offered the opportunity, I know I'm easily gonna win no matter what degree the discussion.
And now for something completely different... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[TuNnL]

Bye, bye RuTHUGlicans...

No faith in Mittens, oops, Romney. I've heard too much negative lies to trust him.

So, once again I will vote Libertarian - for the philosophy rather than the person. I despise the 2-party system on general principles. I know my candidate will not win, but I will be assured I vote for what I believe in, and that my vote will not start a 3rd world war.

I do not believe either the DemocRATs or the RATpublicans (wow, that's a picture! Rats sitting at a bar, laughing and drinking!) are competent to run this great country.

Libertarian philosophy is attractive to me, and my vote will help the party to grow.

I will follow your lead, Kaonohi. The way the the Republican National Committee treated Ron Paul is something his millions of loyal supporters will never forget. I hope they all join you and I in disowning the GOP the way Paul himself has ... and vote Libertarian in 2012. Go Gary Johnson, go!

Ron Paul washes his hands of Keynesian, fiscally irresponsible Republican party

August 31, 2012 | By: Kenneth Schortgen Jr

On Aug. 31, Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul officially washed his hands of the GOP, just as the 2012 Republican convention comes to a close. Citing the party being no different than the Democrats in fiscal spending and irresponsibility, the Texas Congressman denounced fully that the GOP in its current form was no longer his.

The irony of today's announcement by Congressman Paul is that it was the Republican party who first rejected him, long before Paul's decision to wash his hands of the GOP. During the primary campaign season, multiple Republican committees in states across the country used rule changes and local law enforcement to ensure the Texas Congressman did not succeed in winning primaries. Couple this with the fraudulent attempt to keep Ron Paul from being nominated at the Convention by stealing his delegates in Maine, and in other states, and it is no surprise that the soon to retire Congressman has had enough of the corrupt political party he supported for more than 30 years.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Bye, bye Democratic-Republicans

I will follow your lead, Kaonohi. The way the the Republican National Committee treated Ron Paul is something his millions of loyal supporters will never forget. I hope they all join you and I in disowning the GOP the way Paul himself has ... and vote Libertarian in 2012. Go Gary Johnson, go!

It's time to realize that the Democrats and Republicans were once ONE PARTY!!!!! They split in order to deceive the American people that they were competing. Check your history. Our two-party system has been a one-party system for many dozens of years.

You have been scammed.

So, what you gonna DO about it?

Vote Libertarian. Likely we won't win, but we need to get a second party on the ticket!

[matapule]

Re: Bye, bye RuTHUGlicans...

I hope they all join you and I in disowning the GOP the way Paul himself has ... and vote Libertarian in 2012.

Yes, the political process is beginning to sort itself out. The TeaBagger movement has always been Libertarian. They attempted to hijack the Republican party to make it even more extremist and conservative for the last 8 years. It worked to some extent, but things are beginning to unravel now. Even Lyin' Ryan, (a true Libertarian) is being rejected by some Republican leaders as being too extreme with his unworkable budget.

The American voting core is centrist, (for better or for worse) and rejects movements that are too conservative or too liberal. History proves that Romoney is quite moderate. I think he and his advisory staff have made a significant mistake in the positions he has taken with regards to significant issues and the selection of his running mate. We shall see if that is a fatal flaw after a decision is made in November. In my opinion, Romoney would have had a better chance at being elected if he had come across as more moderate.

So a significant number, but yet still a minority, of Libertarian voters signified by the Tea Party, are disenfranchised, dissatisfied, and disgruntled. This spells doom for the movement in the long run (a reluctance to compromise on issues) and Libertarian principles will suffer as a result. They will continue to experience some success in national politics in the future, particularly in the House where districts can be gerrymandered to consolidate special interest groups, but 2012 was their best chance to make a real impact. The Republican Party knows that and they are not going to let a minority movement hurt that Party's potential for success in future elections as the demographics of America change in, apparently, a more liberal direction with the influx citizens from other countries.

Taimi fakapehe (time will tell)