Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Careful, you may not know Joe like you thought.And if you keep calling me un-American, I'm going to start calling you Joe McCarthy.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-McCarthy-Americas-ebook/dp/B000W94GOU/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1330047883&sr=1-1"]Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies[/ame]
Book Description
Publication Date: November 24, 2009
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that even today, a half century after his death, his name remains synonymous with witch hunts.
But that conventional image is all wrong, as veteran journalist and author M. Stanton Evans reveals in this groundbreaking book. The long-awaited Blacklisted by History, based on six years of intensive research, dismantles the myths surrounding Joe McCarthy and his campaign to unmask Communists, Soviet agents, and flagrant loyalty risks working within the U.S. government. Evanss revelations completely overturn our understanding of McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the Cold War.
Drawing on primary sourcesincluding never-before-published government records and FBI files, as well as recent research gleaned from Soviet archives and intercepted transmissions between Moscow spymasters and their agents in the United StatesEvans presents irrefutable evidence of a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our government, influence its policies, and steal its secrets. Most shocking of all, he shows that U.S. officials supposedly guarding against this danger not only let it happen but actively covered up the penetration. All of this was precisely as Joe McCarthy contended.
Blacklisted by History shows, for instance, that the FBI knew as early as 1942 that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the atomic bomb project, had been identified by Communist leaders as a party member; that high-level U.S. officials were warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy almost a decade before the Hiss case became a public scandal; that a cabal of White House, Justice Department, and State Department officials lied about and covered up the Amerasia spy case; and that the State Department had been heavily penetrated by Communists and Soviet agents before McCarthy came on the scene.
Evans also shows that practically everything weve been told about McCarthy is false, including conventional treatment of the famous 1950 speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, that launched the McCarthy era (I have here in my hand . . .), the Senate hearings that casually dismissed his charges, the matter of leading McCarthy suspect Owen Lattimore, the Annie Lee Moss case, the Army-McCarthy hearings, and much more.
In the end, Senator McCarthy was censured by his colleagues and condemned by the press and historians. But as Evans writes, The real Joe McCarthy has vanished into the mists of fable and recycled error, so that it takes the equivalent of a dragnet search to find him. Blacklisted by History provides the first accurate account of what McCarthy did and, more broadly, what happened to America during the Cold War. It is a revealing exposé of the forces that distorted our national policy in that conflict and our understanding of its history since.
An absolute MUST read.
I've never dealt with him/her before, but so far I am decidedly unimpressed.
Foxy is normally well spoken this isn't like the Fox I have dealt with.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
This is true. The party has moved in very strange directions over the past ten to fifteen years.You're alleging intent. The onus is on you to prove it.I am far less concerned with the reasons anybody does anything and far more concerned with the results. There is a very good reason for the old saw that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unless one is unwise, naive, and/or unpatriotic, anybody HAS to know that if a GOP candidate is not elected, whomever he/she is, then Barack Obama will be re-elected.
And, last time I checked, Ron Paul was a Republican.
Actually if you compare Paul to other Republicans he's a Rino. He is nothing like those who are running for president when they claim to be a Republican. There are many liberals in the GOP
It's not about you and it never was. I don't know you and I don't really care what your convictions are, if you call me unpatriotic, don't be surprised if I don't like it. I'm a descendant of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and I've had ancestors shed blood in every war the US has waged from the Revolution to Iraq and Afghanistan. This country is in my blood and I'll be god damned if I'm just going to sit still while some keyboard pundit tells me I'm unpatriotic because I don't fall in line behind her or her party or whatever the hell other criteria she's chosen that day, and if that bothers you or anyone else, that's just too damned bad. If you think I don't care about what happens to this country, you're dead-ass wrong.You choose to punish America for not liking your candidate, America loses. And so do you.
Look at what you guys have been doing here. You aren't addressing the points I am making re the consequences of a second Obama term. You rather have been focusing on me, neg reppoing me, accusing me, criticizing me. That isn't getting it done guys. I am speaking my convictions about what is best for America.
You are sayingit specifically, but you are saying in effect that you are supporting a candidate and dictating to America that they better vote for your guy or you'll throw America under the bus. And somehow you're missing the disconnect of how unAmerican a concept that is.
But if you think that's okay, then yes, we'll just have to disagree.
Foxy is normally well spoken this isn't like the Fox I have dealt with.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
No one is asking you to support one over the other, what has been pointed out many times, do not vote for what the party wants you to vote for, when what the party is pushing is the mirror image of what they oppose. I would cut my right arm off before I marked a ballot for the bullshit the GOP is pushing.
You're smart if you can't see it then nothing I say will make you see it. What part of ALL THREE HAVE SUPPORT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER WHAT OBAMA IS DOING CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND?Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
No one is asking you to support one over the other, what has been pointed out many times, do not vote for what the party wants you to vote for, when what the party is pushing is the mirror image of what they oppose. I would cut my right arm off before I marked a ballot for the bullshit the GOP is pushing.
What bullshit would that be that is so inferior to what Obama is pushing?
Mitt - RomneyCare
Rick - Stealing from disabled veterans to enrich his church
Newt - Global Warming w/Nancy Pelosi
There's more I could add to the list, but there's enough bullshit there to start a fertilizer factory...
You're alleging intent. The onus is on you to prove it.I am far less concerned with the reasons anybody does anything and far more concerned with the results. There is a very good reason for the old saw that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unless one is unwise, naive, and/or unpatriotic, anybody HAS to know that if a GOP candidate is not elected, whomever he/she is, then Barack Obama will be re-elected.
And, last time I checked, Ron Paul was a Republican.
Actually if you compare Paul to other Republicans he's a Rino. He is nothing like those who are running for president when they claim to be a Republican. There are many liberals in the GOP
I've never dealt with him/her before, but so far I am decidedly unimpressed.
Foxy is normally well spoken this isn't like the Fox I have dealt with.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
YepFoxy is normally well spoken this isn't like the Fox I have dealt with.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Foxy is normally well spoken this isn't like the Fox I have dealt with.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Well that's the thing Immie. While I am less than impressed with the GOP field we have to choose from, I am 100% certain that not one of them would ever intentionally do something to hurt America or Americans. I am 100% certain that not one of them would suggest that the U.S. government can spend us into prosperity or that income redistribution is a good thing for government to do.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any of those things re Barack Obama.
But I can't think of anything else I can say to plead the case of doing what's best for Americva however marginal that better might be. I apologize any who feel I have personally offended them as that was not my intent.
And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
Maybe one day you'll realize that most of us are voting for Ron Paul out of conviction and not spite.And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
Let me try to explain this to you one more time. If you don't get it after this, we'll just have to disagree.Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
Many of us Ron Paul supporters have been in the trenches fighting the growing beast of government for DECADES. We've been insulted, cussed, marginalized, laughed at, slandered, ostracized, assaulted, spat upon, had our cars damaged because we DARED put a Ron Paul sticker on it, and we've even been labelled as possible domestic terrorists by the DHS. We've tried to speak rationally, we've tried to 'play nice', and all it's gotten us is more of the same shit that we take on these boards EVERY GODDAMNED DAY.
And we take it from people who call themselves 'conservatives'.
As far as I'm concerned you 'conservatives' have no right to judge, you have no moral authority to lead and you have no backbone to stand up to the criminal conspirators in our own party. You've played 'go along to get along' for so long that we ARE heading over a cliff, and instead of turning the goddamned bus, you just want to downshift a gear or two.
You just don't get it. You expect us to vote for ANOTHER lying, cheating, stealing, Constitution-ignoring Fascist just because you want the Marxist out. Well, the Fascists are JUST AS BAD. And you fools SUPPORT them.
We DON'T!
Fox is right and you all should be a bit ashamed if you're guilty.Look at what you guys have been doing here. You aren't addressing the points I am making re the consequences of a second Obama term. You rather have been focusing on me, neg reppoing me, accusing me, criticizing me. That isn't getting it done guys.
I'm offended that you think that taking a stand is doing so out of spite or being vindictive. Read my signature.Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Well that's the thing Immie. While I am less than impressed with the GOP field we have to choose from, I am 100% certain that not one of them would ever intentionally do something to hurt America or Americans. I am 100% certain that not one of them would suggest that the U.S. government can spend us into prosperity or that income redistribution is a good thing for government to do.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any of those things re Barack Obama.
But I can't think of anything else I can say to plead the case of doing what's best for Americva however marginal that better might be. I apologize to any who feel I have personally offended them as that was not my intent.
And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
Okay, let's take this slowly and carefully.
Let's pretend Barack Obama has been an okay President and is no worse than other Presidents have been. Let's assume that his world view, economic policies, and general focus is no worse than anybody else's other than Ron Paul. If that is the case, then it won't make much difference whether he is re-elected or not. Will you agree with that? And you have nothing to lose with an unsuccessful Ron Paul campaign.
If you think Barack Obama's world view, his economic policies, and general focus has been dangerious and/or counterproductive and the GOP candidates would be less radical, less dangerous, less destructive, then it will make a difference if Barack Obama is not re-elected even if we don't get what we most want.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter at all other than liking him personally, but I would absolutely put my disappointment aside if he was the GOP nominee and would promote him as the candidate to vote for. Even though I think he will not be the President that I hope for.
Why? Because the alternative is to wish a very bad situation on the United States of America and the people who live here.
Would you not consider me a spoiled brat, naive, unpatriotic, or unwise if I refused to vote Republican if Ron Paul did win the nomination?
So how am I the bad guy because I see it the same way if you guys refuse to vote GOP if Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or somebody else in a brokered convention emerges at the top of the ticket?
The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Well that's the thing Immie. While I am less than impressed with the GOP field we have to choose from, I am 100% certain that not one of them would ever intentionally do something to hurt America or Americans. I am 100% certain that not one of them would suggest that the U.S. government can spend us into prosperity or that income redistribution is a good thing for government to do.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any of those things re Barack Obama.
But I can't think of anything else I can say to plead the case of doing what's best for Americva however marginal that better might be. I apologize to any who feel I have personally offended them as that was not my intent.
And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
I'm offended that you think that taking a stand is doing so out of spite or being vindictive. Read my signature.The highlighted section is the problem I have.
I am not convinced that either one of the other three are less dangerous. I happen to like both Newt and Santorum but Santorum has been saying some pretty un-Christlike things lately and that bothers me. Newt talks a better game than Obama and seems to be more qualified than Obama is even today, but that is scary because one thing that is certain beyond any doubt at all is that Newt Gingrich is first and foremost a politician. Romney is a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why on earth should I believe that either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum are less dangerous than what we have today?
Which ever one we elect... we're screwed.
Immie
Well that's the thing Immie. While I am less than impressed with the GOP field we have to choose from, I am 100% certain that not one of them would ever intentionally do something to hurt America or Americans. I am 100% certain that not one of them would suggest that the U.S. government can spend us into prosperity or that income redistribution is a good thing for government to do.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any of those things re Barack Obama.
But I can't think of anything else I can say to plead the case of doing what's best for Americva however marginal that better might be. I apologize to any who feel I have personally offended them as that was not my intent.
And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
I'm offended that you think that taking a stand is doing so out of spite or being vindictive. Read my signature.Well that's the thing Immie. While I am less than impressed with the GOP field we have to choose from, I am 100% certain that not one of them would ever intentionally do something to hurt America or Americans. I am 100% certain that not one of them would suggest that the U.S. government can spend us into prosperity or that income redistribution is a good thing for government to do.
I have no confidence whatsoever in any of those things re Barack Obama.
But I can't think of anything else I can say to plead the case of doing what's best for Americva however marginal that better might be. I apologize to any who feel I have personally offended them as that was not my intent.
And I will withdraw now with a lot of hope that when it really comes down to the wire, even the Ron Paul supporters will do the right thing for the country and not act out of vindictive or petulant spite,.
Well I'm sorry, but knowing what Ron Paul supporters generally say that they believe in, I can't see it any other way if they intentionally re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.
