Skip to comments.Perspectives: Heads they win, tails we lose [No ABO!]
Posted on 06/02/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Some lies are easier to spot than others. Of course Ill respect you in the morning. The check is in the mail. A vote for anybody but Romney is a vote for Obama.
The people who repeat this last lie are undeniably sincere. They dont recognize that theyre merely repeating a manipulative platitude, calculated to keep voters within the ideological boundaries of a thoroughly corrupt two party system. The falsehood being parroted sounds almost exactly like it did four years ago except, in 2008, the name McCain was used in place of Romney.
Once again the GOP faithful are being admonished to fall in line behind a political choice that was made for them many months ago. The individuals who made this decision included power brokers and policymakers representing both major parties. When the efforts of party leaders combine with their cronies in the media, corporations and influential moneyed interests, the outcome tends to favors them no matter who wins.
This was what author Carroll Quiqley referred to in his book Tragedy and Hope when he wrote: The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
The fact that the likely GOP nominee and the current president share virtually identical stances on foreign policy, the welfare state, and monetary policy should be a strong clue that whichever candidate the voters elect this November, no actual change will occur.
Both candidates demonstrate disdain for the rule of law by their ongoing support of extra-judicial detentions and killings in the name of national security. Neither Romney nor Obama advocates a return to limited government and greater respect for the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. The interests of those who back them are hardly the interests of the American people.
So is it any surprise that the political ruling class keeps telling us that those candidates whose principles reflect greater freedom, constitutionally limited government, and responsible fiscal, monetary and foreign policies are unelectable? There seem to be just enough gullible voters each election cycle willing to take these official pronouncements at face value.
If theres a lesson to be learned here, its that most coverage of the presidential election seems intended to distract the people from understanding the real issues.
Thankfully, an increasing number of voters are refusing to accept the false dilemma theyre being offered. These are the citizens who have taken the time to educate themselves politically, economically, spiritually, and philosophically. They recognize that the fraudulent two party system offers no real choice. They understand that the only vote for Obama will be one that comes from a person actually casting their ballot for Obama.
These are the voters who know that any political leader who supports gun bans, socialized medicine and the denial of due process when imprisoning or murdering individuals is unworthy of their vote. Whether that candidates name is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is irrelevant. People who are in the habit of basing their decisions upon principle rather than pragmatism are more difficult to deceive.
Columnist Vin Suprynowizc once asked his readers to imagine that they were citizens of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. He asked them how they would want to address their grandchildren as they approached the end of their lives. Would they prefer to tell their families They told us that our only choice was between the Nazis and the Communists. So I had to choose the lesser of the two evils? Or would they rather say, I refused to support either the fascists or the Bolsheviks. Because of this, I was shouted down, marginalized and abused for refusing to acquiesce, but I stayed true to my conscience and to my principles?
The future of our nation doesnt hinge upon the outcome of this single presidential election. But it has a great deal to do with the long-term character and principles of the voters who will participate in this and future elections. If they can be deceived every election cycle into selling out for an illusory short-term political gain, we will all lose in the long run.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
And YOU are trying to spin them into some kind of “criticism of Jim.” They are such criticism only if YOU would find fault with Jim for not making the LDS organization influence upon Mitt an issue. You get implicated, sir. Not me.
ROFL...It’s hilarious when a MittBot tries to scuttle around and deny his own words....or tries to build a straw man to hide behind...LOLOL!
I floated the issue to Mr. Jim as a question. I was not truly convinced it was a problem, because if it was, Mitt would then have to explain the situation to the whole bloomin’ world. But if anyone has a reason to oppose Mitt, Jim would, and if THIS reason was valid, Jim ought to have found out by now.
It’s you that came at it like a battering ram. And now you are trying to back off and blame it on me?
Yep it’s funny to watch you scurry around and do the things you accuse me of.
Oh, so now you're critizing JR because he isn't fully informed on issues?
Sounds to me like you just got your feelingS hurt because JR didn't take the bait you put out there for him.
ANNNNNDDD it's ALL MY FAULT!.
We are trying to conserve bandwidth on Free Republic. The more words we type out on Free Republic, the more overhead and the more frequent the Freepathons.
By conserving webspace, such as using GOP-e (for GOP establishment) and by using VABO (vote anybody but Obama), we do not use up our allotment of words as quickly.
I urge everybody to use as many abbreviations as possible when typing out replies on the Free Republic so that we do not use up so much webspace. Then we can focus on taking back the United States of America and defeating Barack Hussein Obama and his circlejerk of marxist fools.
You are the one coming at an issue that isn’t a big deal to His Jimness, with a sledge hammer. Wanna imply that Jim is an ignoramus? Go right ahead be my guest. I take Jim as a logical authority on all troublesome things Mitt at this juncture. That is, the things that matter.
That's hard to believe, given your posting history. Go away. I'm tired of your idiocy.
So, you are suggesting that a 3rd party has a chance of winning. Interesting. I've been saying that all along.
Trying to hijack the thread?
There may have been a time when that was the case. Today, we have two divisions of a single party - the inside the beltway, elitist party, who are both beholden to special interests. They main difference between the two are which group of crony capitalists and insiders get the larger portion of the spoils.
Left completely out in the wilderness is the average American citizen.
Lincoln was the nominee of one of the two main parties.
Two other “third parties” split off part of the support of the other main party, ensuring Republican victory.
Just as one or more truly effective conservative 3rd parties would be the most efficient way to re-elect Obama.
No, Lincoln was the nominee of the new Republican party (only one nominee prior to Lincoln, Fremont, I believe.) The established parties were Whigs and Democrats.
Nope, there was no Whig Party in 1860.
The last presidential election where the Whigs were at all functional was 1852, when they got 42 of 296 electoral votes.
They were largely replaced by the Republicans in 1856 as the opponents of the Democrats, when they ran Fremont. That year the Democrats got 174 electoral votes, the Republicans 114, and the Whigs the grand total of 8.
By 1860 “the two parties” were the Democrats, who split themselves three ways, and the Republicans, who stayed united. The Whigs didn’t exist.
So you’re telling me that the Republicans went from zero representation in 1852 to respectability in one election, 1856, and to victory in 2 elections, 1860.
That means a new party can be grown pretty quickly.
Calm down, it's already happening. They're called TEApublicans.
Sure can, if one party falls apart.
This has only happened once in US history.
More commonly, when a third party starts to make inroads, one of the established parties changes in such a way as to siphon off its support.
But even using the Whig collapse as an example, you’re looking at 8 t0 12 years to bring a new party to the point where it can win an election, during which period the remaining established party is unchallenged.
What will our country look like after 8 to 12 years of leftist control? Would there even be real elections after that period?