Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

If It's Romney vs Obama

Recs

29

May 18, 2011 – Comments (52)

You might as well kiss the Rule of Law goodbye.

When a man can pick up the phone and get $10 million from the people on the other end, does it make you curious as to who exactly is on the other end of that phone? 

It makes me nervous. I found Huckabee to be a delightful punch line, Sarah to be a fame-crazed camera hog with an empty head, and Trump to be an entertaining sideshow.  Romney worries me because it appears that very wealthy and powerful people would like him to be the Republican candidate.  I strongly suspect that these people pressured Huckabee to stay on the sidelines.  I suspect that these people also support Obama financially and would just like to make sure the deck is completely stacked.

Romney's task now is simple: co-opt just enough of the libertarian message, apologize just enough for state interventions he supported in the past, and promise just enough to be a tough fiscal conservative.  This, and his plastic man persona, should be enough to win the primary. 

If it is Romney vs Obama, there is no choice.  There is only the continued destruction of liberty.

David in Qatar

52 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 18, 2011 at 8:25 AM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

Speaking of Rule of Law, have you head about the goings on in Indiana?

Report this comment
#2) On May 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

I think Romney has a better tailor and stylist. The upside if he wins it all we'll have a more dapper looking president. The French and Italians would respect that.

With Ghengis Newt showing how out of touch he is with the current GOP by throwing Ryan's plan under the bus he has created an uphill climb out of something that should have been almost a sinch. This current event can do nothing but help thers like Romney.  

Report this comment
#3) On May 18, 2011 at 9:09 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

Speaking of Rule of Law, have you head about the goings on in Indiana?

Don't worry cato.  Your betters will come along shortly and let you know that this is being done for your safety.

With Ghengis Newt showing how out of touch he is with the current GOP

I think that whole thing is orchestrated. Newt is only there to make Romney look good. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#4) On May 18, 2011 at 9:23 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

whereaminow,

I'm surprised at your oppinion.  From following your blogs and comments I would have thought you knew the elite bought and paid for elections at least as far back as Reagan and I suspect even before.

Report this comment
#5) On May 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.48) wrote:

If it is Romney vs Obama, there is no choice.  There is only the continued destruction of liberty.

well said

Report this comment
#6) On May 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, docfoertmeyer (78.85) wrote:

Any one would be better than Obama

Report this comment
#7) On May 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, TheDumbMoney (44.29) wrote:

I'm worried, too.  Can anyone tell me where to get a good tin hat? 

Thanks.

Report this comment
#8) On May 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

When was the last time we "had a choice"?

Report this comment
#9) On May 18, 2011 at 9:39 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

dumberthanafool,

Use aluminum foil however, buy it before the U.S. default or you wont be able to afford it... =D

Report this comment
#10) On May 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

My betters? Oh, thank goodness. I can relax now. I'll stock up on the lube, laytex gloves and pizza rolls just in case I have some unexpected guests.

I am glad that Indiana is not where I call home. Something good may come of this yet. Maybe now the authorities there can find out what the deal is with the Cougar part of John Melloncamp's stage name? Go kick down a door to satisfy my need to know!

As for Newtasaurus: I think he is in it to win it. His campaign HQ is in Atlanta, one floor about he the offices of the local GOP. In this media age elections, more often than not, are dog and pony shows. It will still be interesting to see what happens over the next twelve months.

Report this comment
#11) On May 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

dumberthanafool,

Due to the high lead content of tin the government has pulled tin hats from the market. You will not have to settle for a aluminum hat, but only with a prescription from your PCP. If you are found in possession of a aluminum without a prescription you will be fined and forcably relocated to Indiana.

Report this comment
#12) On May 18, 2011 at 10:14 AM, catoismymotor (34.75) wrote:

not = now

Report this comment
#13) On May 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, QwertyHero (< 20) wrote:

Go Mitt go! 

Time to get an adult back in the whitehouse who has real, actual experience both in government and in private enterprises.  Clearly, electing a 1/2 term senator who once organized a community bar-b-q was a severe lapse in public judgment. 

Go Mitt go!

Report this comment
#14) On May 18, 2011 at 10:29 AM, TheDumbMoney (44.29) wrote:

My prediction?  Romney, who ALSO raised at least six million in 2008, in a very similar and completely unworrisome telethon (the people he is calling are financier friends from his Bain days, and also rich mormons, of which the country has many), will lose again, just as he lost in 2008, because everyone and their dog knows the man has no convictions or moral compass whatsoever.

On a side note, let me just say as a lawyer that Supreme Court jurisdprudence on the Fourth Amendment has long been absurd and has largely eviscerated the Fourth Amendment.  The Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, while shocking, seems quite in line with the US Supreme Court. 

You should know however (if you do not already), that this entire line of jurisprudence has been led and advocated for by conservative "tough on crime" think tanks, the Federalist Society (a conservative legal organization) and, on the court, most often, by Justices like Scalia and Thomas.  Many liberal commenters have long-decried what the Supreme Court has done in the last twenty-five years with the Fourth Amendment. 

On the other hand, until the Miranda decision thirty-some years ago, people didn't even have to be read any rights when they were arrested.  So you win some and you lose some.  The past twenty-some years or so of conservative Supreme Court jurisdprudence have basically been a conservative-led push-back against the Supreme Court's Miranda decision.  The pendulum has already swung too far, and especially if Obama appoints another justice like Sotomayor, you will see a swing back in the other direction over the next twenty years or so, especially if the new justice replaces Kennedy or even Breyer.

Report this comment
#15) On May 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Mylar is the new tin. Invert a potato chip bag and place on head.

After the election, an unknown Chinese reverse merger company will trade like Google because the demand for mylar will cause a rare earths panic.

The sad part is that the company will be a lithium miner which isn't a rare earth, but neither is mylar and Mr. Market hasn't sweated these kind of details for a few years now.

My hot investment pick...

Frito Lay 

Report this comment
#16) On May 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

dumberthanfool,

Got it. All problems are the result of conservatives. Thanks for the info.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On May 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Alright, I give up.  I tried to Google whats going on in Indiana.

No joy, throw me a bone.

Report this comment
#18) On May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Alright, I think I found it;

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110518/EDIT07/305189987/1147/EDIT07

For everyone else.

As I've blogged before; look for TSA agents with long coats and special lapel insignia to kick in your door one day soon. =D

Report this comment
#19) On May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88368.html

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On May 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM, TheDumbMoney (44.29) wrote:

David,

As you know, that's not what I said.  But this one is.

Best,

Dumber

Report this comment
#21) On May 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Melaschasm (55.11) wrote:

From what I have heard, some lame Judge has ruled that it is illegal to defend yourself when a criminal, who also happens to be a cop, breaks into your house.

Since conservatives are famous for opposing self defense, especially when that defense includes the use of a gun, this judge is obviously a conservative....

Report this comment
#22) On May 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

dumberthanafool,

I'm confused, what were you saying?  Were you saying all problems are the result of liberals?

Perhaps you meant to say there is no problem...

Report this comment
#23) On May 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Turfscape (46.07) wrote:

docfoertmeyer wrote:
"Any one would be better than Obama"

See...this is how we get into these predicaments. We keep voting for "not that guy" just to chalk up a "win" for "our side".

Hey! Here's an idea...instead of voting for a (D) or (R)...let's support candidates who are actually committed to freedom, the end of imperialism, fiscal responsibility and limited government influence over the individual. But, here's the trick: you will not find that person in a primary...guaranteed. The type of candidate I'm describing wouldn't be caught dead with a lable like Republican or Democrat attached to them.

Report this comment
#24) On May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Turfscape (46.07) wrote:

Melaschasm wrote:
"Since conservatives are famous for opposing self defense, especially when that defense includes the use of a gun, this judge is obviously a conservative...."

I detect just a hint of sarcasm in your writing...but just to clarify, it wasn't 'a judge'. It was the Supreme Court of Indiana, which is a panel of five justices. Of those, 3 were appointed by Republican Governors, and 2 were appointed by a Democratic Governor. Of the two justices who dissented in the 3-2 decision, one was a Republican appointment, and one a Democratic.

But, by all means, keep thinking that "your side" is different than "their side".

Report this comment
#25) On May 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM, TheDumbMoney (44.29) wrote:

mtf001, I was responding to David's last comment.  I was saying that I did not previously say that all problems are caused by "conservatives."  (And I do not think that.)  I was saying that this Fourth Amendment jurisprudence problem (as stated in my previous post before that) was the result of classic, Reagan-era "tough-on-crime" conservatives and a legal ideology they deliberately formulated as part of the "tough-on-crime" movement that was all part and parcel of the same push, for example, that created "Three Strikes" laws, etc., all during the same time period  That's simply a matter of legal history. 

 One thing David says, which I agree with, is that very often one's choice between the two major parties is nothing more than a choice between which of one's rights one wants taken away.  Both parties often want to take away individual rights and/or restrict them at the expense of the state, the two sides are just focused on different sets of rights.

Report this comment
#26) On May 18, 2011 at 7:09 PM, rfaramir (29.36) wrote:

"Any one would be better than Obama"

The powers that be, in general, want to keep the status quo. The media and the Democrats (I repeat myself) also want the weakest Republican candidate to run against.

If Obama wins, the powers win. If a weak Republican wins, the powers lose almost nothing.

The Republicans must choose the most liberty-loving candidate that can win. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are best for liberty, but may not be able to win. Sarah Palin is next best. Though she annoys many libertarians with her social conservatism, I believe she loves liberty enough that she wouldn't impose her values. After these three, the choices are much more depressing. A Fed board member, a soldier, and a bunch of empty-suit statists, as far as I can tell. (I don't know much about several of them.)

Report this comment
#27) On May 18, 2011 at 8:50 PM, russiangambit (29.27) wrote:

Romney cannot win because he doesn't have charisma, he has no inner fire. Someone who cannot inspire cannot lead. Though it would serve evangelicans right to have a mormon for a nominee.

I am hoping for a wild turn leading to Ron Paul nomination. After all they did nominate McCain last year and McCain didn't have the support of the republican establishment either.

Report this comment
#28) On May 18, 2011 at 9:26 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

I don't think it's even a matter of which rights they want to take away dumberthanafool. I think that either side will take away all of them if left unabated.

I think that having an alternative is what makes them focus on the ones that they want to take away first though.

Report this comment
#29) On May 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,3341161.story

8-1 decision

liberal and conservative

stupid and evil joining forces again

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On May 19, 2011 at 6:59 AM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,3341161.story

So, the criteria for breaking down my door is to pound on it, hear someone moving inside and perhaps flushing their toilet?  How many homes in America met those criteria that day? 

Millions.

I wonder how many of the 8 Justices voting for this have any first hand knowledge of the sacrifices millions of Americans have made to prevent things just like this from happening in our country?

I suggest each one walk through Arlington to gain the proper perspective.

Sky Pilot

 

Report this comment
#31) On May 19, 2011 at 8:08 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

sky pilot,

it's funny. whenever i hear someone say that our troops are defending our freedom, i think of this kind of stuff.  they didn't even defend their own freedoms.

See this chilling episode:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87886.html

so it is meaningless. our troops are told they defend our freedom, but they only defend the power elite. some get it, some don't.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On May 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

dumberthanafool,

Thanks for expounding, I think I understand now.

rfaramir,

Now you've confused me.  The power elite want Democrats or weak Republicans?  Are you speaking in reference to the current presidential run only or in general?

whereaminow,

Just to verify, liberals are stupid and conservatives are evil?

An interesting article you posted.  I'm sure the Judges and other politicians are on the "Do Not Molest" list.

 

Report this comment
#33) On May 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

Just to verify, liberals are stupid and conservatives are evil?

Not the voters.  They lack what Herbert Spencer defined as "political intelligence" over 100 years ago.  Humanity has progressed in many fields of science, math, technology, literature, music, etc. etc.  It's not always forward progress, but we do see progress and variation and increased intelligence on these subjects.  When it comes political intelligence, liberals and conservatives have made no progress since the 19th century.  You can pick up a pamphlet of the Tories vs. the Liberals in 19th century England and see the same dumb arguments and talking points put in front of the voters.  They ate it up then, just as they do now.  Humanity has had zero progress in political intelligence in the last 100 years.  It's quite pathetic.

But the Parties.. the Democrat Party Machine is very very stupid and the Republican Party Machine is very very evil.  And as Tom Woods once quipped, "ocasionally they come together and do something stupid and evil, and they call it bipartisanship."

;)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#34) On May 19, 2011 at 12:17 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

russiangambit,

I agree with you, Romney wont get elected.  I disagree with your reasons.  They are the same reasons Ron Paul will not get elected.

This is what wins elections;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election

Neither Romney or Paul have this.

Here is 2004;

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/

I give up on 2000 data however, it was a first as G.W. did things that were never done before.

 

Report this comment
#35) On May 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Thanks for the clarification David.  Although, from a general since you may be correct I have to ask, do you vote in the general election or do you abstain on principle?

Report this comment
#36) On May 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, turdburglar (42.53) wrote:

Romney is so boring that I think he'll probably lose in the primary. 

Report this comment
#37) On May 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

2000 data painfully dug from the end of the information super highway;

http://www.fec.gov/finance/prsq399.htm

Report this comment
#38) On May 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Perhaps we should attempt what was done in the movie Brewsters Millions and vote for "None of the above".

Report this comment
#39) On May 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Oh, wait, does that mean Congress get's to pick?  Nevermind.

Report this comment
#40) On May 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

Back when I was more republican and less libertarian, I used to listen to conservative radio host Dennis Prager (whom I still enjoy, even if I disagree on many issues).  One of his favorite catch phrases was "There are two political parties, the dangerous and the stupid, and I am a member of the stupid."

I guess which is which depends on your perspective!

Report this comment
#41) On May 19, 2011 at 3:58 PM, rfaramir (29.36) wrote:

mtf00l

"Now you've confused me.  The power elite want Democrats or weak Republicans?  Are you speaking in reference to the current presidential run only or in general?"

Both. The media, as far as journalists, want Democrats in general, always, since their position is socialist. The other power elites (including owners of most media) want the status quo. Politically the status quo is currently 2/3rds Democrat (Presidency and Senate). Economically the status quo is basically a mix of mercantilism (what big-business Republicans are for) and a mixed economy (some socialism some freedom, which always tends to more socialism).

By "weak Republicans" I mean those who won't change either status quo much, which basically means those not with the Tea Party movement. They're either not substantially different from the Democrats (economically socialist), or are old-school big business mercantilist boobs who want statist intervention in markets, and foreign military intervention, too, or are empty suits with no convictions, which means the status quo is safe from them, too.

The Tea Partiers, while not cohesive, have many of the right threads among them: more liberty, less government, more accountable government, lower taxes, less loopholes, less favoritism (more fairness but NOT forced equal outcomes).

Other threads among them that I have a mixed reaction to are these: anti-illegal immigration, support the troops, conservative religious observation.

Report this comment
#42) On May 19, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Turfscape (46.07) wrote:

rfaramir wrote:
"The Tea Partiers, while not cohesive, have many of the right threads among them: more liberty, less government, more accountable government, lower taxes, less loopholes, less favoritism"

Yes, they have those...as fun, bumper sticker slogans. However, in practice, they have exhibited none of those. But, boy-oh-boy, they sure were fun to watch on the news during the elections!

Report this comment
#43) On May 19, 2011 at 9:54 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:


sky pilot,

it's funny. whenever i hear someone say that our troops are defending our freedom, i think of this kind of stuff.  they didn't even defend their own freedoms.

See this chilling episode:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87886.html

so it is meaningless. our troops are told they defend our freedom, but they only defend the power elite. some get it, some don't.

David in Qatar

David,

I hope no one breaks down my door.  If they do and it is the police, I hope I hear them say, “Police”.  My hearing isn’t what it once was.  Otherwise if it’s dark, ole’ Sky Pilot may inadvertently go out in a blaze of glory………   I still have my favorite side arm.  Her name is Colt.

I wonder if, any of my Exs would attend my funeral services?  Maybe, I should update my will to include per diem travel to and from….  I know it’s strange but sometimes I wonder about things like that………  Probably the after effect of inadvertently inhaling napalm fumes and other “substances” back then  ……..

Time to join #4…..  You know, the number 4 has always been lucky for me..

:)

I am rambling now.

Sky Pilot

 

Report this comment
#44) On May 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

 

 David wrote:

"Not the voters.  They lack what Herbert Spencer defined as "political intelligence" over 100 years ago.  Humanity has progressed in many fields of science, math, technology, literature, music, etc. etc.  It's not always forward progress, but we do see progress and variation and increased intelligence on these subjects.  When it comes political intelligence, liberals and conservatives have made no progress since the 19th century.  You can pick up a pamphlet of the Tories vs. the Liberals in 19th century England and see the same dumb arguments and talking points put in front of the voters.  They ate it up then, just as they do now.  Humanity has had zero progress in political intelligence in the last 100 years.  It's quite pathetic."

Great observation.  Pathetic is a perfect description.

Sky Pilot

 

Report this comment
#45) On May 19, 2011 at 11:19 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

I cut 2 holes in a potato chip bag for my legs and now I have mylar underwear to protect me from Japanese radiation. Everyone knows that the Japanese do not like potato chips.

Report this comment
#46) On May 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Turfscape (46.07) wrote:

ChrisGraley wrote:
"Everyone knows that the Japanese do not like potato chips."

I gotta admit, my appetite for them has now completely disappeared, as well. In fact, I might never again be able to indulge in some Lays without the thought of greasy chip crumbs clinging to your...unmentionable areas.

Oh well, I could stand to lose a few pounds.

Report this comment
#47) On May 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM, rfaramir (29.36) wrote:

Turfscape, you're right to judge more by actions than words. But when words are all you have, I'll use them. Better cries for liberty and less government than threats of violence and cries for more violent government intervention. So at least I'm hearing the right things. Let's hope actions follow.

But effective action will have to wait. Out of the big three President/Senate/House, Republicans control only one, and the Tea Partiers are not a majority of the Rs. They are still just a small but growing bump in the path of the statist steam roller.

Lastly, I have written off the Democrats in terms of helping the Tea Party movement. I had heard of none attending (leadership-wise), and then I read a speech that one had given. While the call for going back to their Jeffersonian Democrat roots (i.e, a 180) was nice to read, he also preached MMT, supporting the statist idea that government can and should do anything it desires with and to our money, that it can spend all it wants but we have to earn ours. I was re-disheartened.

Report this comment
#48) On May 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

rfaramir,

Got it, thanks.

As for the rest of the comments in this thread, some of them made me laugh out loud.  Thanks!  =D

Report this comment
#49) On May 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Turfscape (46.07) wrote:

rfaramir wrote:
"But when words are all you have, I'll use them."

But, in the case of the Tea Party, you do have more than words. You have many, many actions that show exactly who makes up the Tea Party and what they stand for. They stand for heavy government intervention into private affairs through strict social policy based on religion. They stand for xenophobia, whether the target of their fear is American or not. They stand for regressive legal policies that support overstepping of bounds by government law enforcement agencies. They stand for extensive military spending, whether fully-funded or not.

What else do you need to decide that the "Tea Party" is a complete and utter sham?

Report this comment
#50) On May 20, 2011 at 10:09 PM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

Turfscape,

In complete agreement about the Tea Party.  Completely hijacked by neocons and theocrats way before the election.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#51) On May 22, 2011 at 8:12 AM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

“On May 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Turfscape (28.79) wrote:

But, in the case of the Tea Party, you do have more than words. You have many, many actions that show exactly who makes up the Tea Party and what they stand for. They stand for heavy government intervention into private affairs through strict social policy based on religion. They stand for xenophobia, whether the target of their fear is American or not. They stand for regressive legal policies that support overstepping of bounds by government law enforcement agencies. They stand for extensive military spending, whether fully-funded or not.

What else do you need to decide that the "Tea Party" is a complete and utter sham? “

Here’s what I think may be good about the Tea Party. 

It seems many of them have not been active in the political process before the Tea Party was formed.  Maybe even apathetic.  I think it is good that people express their opinions and contribute to “The Debate”.  Even if I do not agree with them. 

Society is better off for them expressing their opinions and getting involved in the process.  An example:  Read about presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and the resulting fallout from some of his comments.  The voters processed that information and acted on it.

Just the act of them getting off from the couch and getting involved in the debate is positive. You see, the truth will sort things out, eventually.  Maybe, it will take a couple decades but it will be revealed.  That has value for society. 

Big Business and Big Labor have been active through their proxies.  Hopefully, the Tea Party will bring a third perspective eventually.  If they are wrong, they’ll be exposed.  If they are right, it will be positive.

Citizens expressing their opinions is always positive long-term for society.  Even, if their opinions are hateful, dumb or uninformed.  It exposes their positions and the merits are debated.

The Tea Party activists’ actions are positive long-term for the country just as activists in the Democratic and Republican parties are.  They reveal their positions and those positions are debated.  That’s good verses them just setting back and complaining.

Sky Pilot

Report this comment
#52) On May 23, 2011 at 1:59 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

skypilot2005,

Oddly, I agree.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement