PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Neocons rejoice in Romney!


KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 11:32 AM
Mitt Romney would like to have a war criminal as his VP

Former Massachusetts Governor and singer of praise for war criminals, Mitt Romney (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Mitt Romney – the undisputed king of flip flops who is regarded with a disturbingly delusional amount of legitimacy in the mainstream media – has announced that he would like a Vice President like infamous war criminal Dick Cheney, a man who strangely also recently claimed that Israel is planning a preemptive strike against Iran.

Personally, I didn’t think it was possible for Romney to delegitimize himself any further than he has already by changing his opinion on just about every single major issue he pretends to care about. Well it appears that I was completely wrong.

In what NBC called “a free-wheeling town hall that felt more like a rally” in Arizona, Romney revealed either a total lack of factual knowledge or a complete disregard for the sanctity of human life by praising the former Vice President Cheney as “a person of wisdom and judgment.”

Cheney might have “judgment” if you consider the approval of torture, mass murder and illegal war any kind of sound judgment.

The notion of Cheney having anything remotely resembling “wisdom” is, at best, laughable.

How can Romney make such overtures about the former Vice President knowing that he laughs when confronted on the fact that people are seeking to charge him as a war criminal?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Romney would praise Cheney’s judgment, seeing as Romney can’t manage to judge anything, opting instead to go with whatever he thinks will make him popular at the time.

Currently, it is the whole hijacked “Tea Party” movement that Romney has attached himself to like a leech, attempting to suck as many votes from the ignorant and easily deceived as possible.

It is not even as though Cheney has endorsed Romney in 2012 and so we could explain it away by saying that Romney is simply returning the favor. In fact, Cheney has yet to endorse anyone in 2012 but I guess there are more pressing matters for a war criminal without a pulse.

For those who are not aware of some of the horrors Dick Cheney has supported, you might be interested in reading this International Criminal Court complaint filed against Cheney along with former President George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzalez by a law professor at University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign found here.

Or you might remember that Cheney helped forge the concept of “enemy combatant” in the so-called “War on Terror” which Cheney and the Bush regime to flout the Geneva Conventions in order to torture and indefinitely detain countless individuals, many of which are innocent of any wrongdoing.

A related aspect of Cheney’s war crimes is the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, where unspeakable horrors occur to this day, all in our name and the fallacious defense of freedom.

I don’t know about you, but my freedom doesn’t require torturing Muslims to death or rounding up children and senile old men to be tortured and detained indefinitely.

Or how about the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame to Cheney’s former chief of staff Scooter Libby, who in turn leaked her identity to a New York Times reporter?

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/09/16/mitt-romney-would-like-to-have-a-war-criminal-as-his-vp/

VAChief
09-16-2011, 11:39 AM
Chickenhawk? Definitely. Cowardly?...debatable....War Criminal? No.

I would say that had he truly fought in Nam on the front lines, his eagerness to put our young people in harm's way would most likely be more judicious.

FishingRod
09-16-2011, 11:48 AM
If Chaney is awar criminal how about Obama? What has he changed?

BucEyedPea
09-16-2011, 11:59 AM
This is not surprising since Romney is a progressive liberal and that's what a NeoCon is.
Although, flip-flopper Mitt could merely be pandering to the hawks on the right to win their approval.
They'll fall for it too, their bloodlust for killing as many Muslims as possible, whether they Arabs, Central Asian or Persian, overrides all other issues.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 12:00 PM
If Chaney is awar criminal how about Obama? What has he changed?

Obama is a little darker than Cheney therefore he can't be a war criminal, plus he has a D before his name.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 12:05 PM
So Pat, does Romney get your vote now?

FishingRod
09-16-2011, 12:12 PM
Obama is a little darker than Cheney therefore he can't be a war criminal, plus he has a D before his name.

Thanks that is the best answer I have heard.

BucEyedPea
09-16-2011, 12:14 PM
So Pat, does Romney get your vote now?

I thought he was supporting Romney? :hmmm:

patteeu
09-16-2011, 12:15 PM
So Pat, does Romney get your vote now?

If true, it certainly makes him more attractive. I don't know where he'll find as solid a conservative with the ability to navigate the corridors of Washington DC power as Dick Cheney though. If Don Rumsfeld weren't so old and if he hadn't already been effectively smeared by his critics, he'd be a good VP.

patteeu
09-16-2011, 12:16 PM
I thought he was supporting Romney? :hmmm:

I haven't picked a candidate for 2012 yet. I've ruled out Obama completely and I've all but ruled out Ron Paul because of his make believe foreign policy ideas.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 12:30 PM
I have picked a candidate for 2012. I've ruled out Obama completely and I'll vote for Ron Paul because of his realistic foreign policy ideas.

That's what i'm thinking.

patteeu
09-16-2011, 12:32 PM
That's what i'm thinking.

Thinking like that is what keeps that psychiatrist of yours rolling in the dough. :p

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2011, 12:55 PM
Thinking like that is what keeps that psychiatrist of yours rolling in the dough. :p

The Lord is my shepherd, i have no use for quacks in my life. ;)

mikey23545
09-16-2011, 05:16 PM
Chickenhawk? Definitely. Cowardly?...debatable....War Criminal? No.

I would say that had he truly fought in Nam on the front lines, his eagerness to put our young people in harm's way would most likely be more judicious.

Pure ignorance.

Are you actually saying a President or VP should only be able to send our Armed Forces to war if he himself has been in the military?

VAChief
09-16-2011, 05:36 PM
Pure ignorance.

Are you actually saying a President or VP should only be able to send our Armed Forces to war if he himself has been in the military?

Pure ignorance? Really? While I would agree military service is not necessary to be POTUS and send men into battle, those that have truly experienced the horrors of war do not make that decision so cavalierly.

vailpass
09-16-2011, 05:42 PM
Pure ignorance.

Are you actually saying a President or VP should only be able to send our Armed Forces to war if he himself has been in the military?

I didn't get that from his post at all. It seemed to me he was saying that those who have themselves been in harm's way have a much keener understanding of what it means to commit troops to war.
A fact that is above dispute.

patteeu
09-16-2011, 06:01 PM
Pure ignorance? Really? While I would agree military service is not necessary to be POTUS and send men into battle, those that have truly experienced the horrors of war do not make that decision so cavalierly.

Do you think everyone who hasn't experience war up close and personal would send people to war cavalierly? I certainly don't think the Bush administration did.

go bowe
09-16-2011, 09:46 PM
Do you think everyone who hasn't experience war up close and personal would send people to war cavalierly? I certainly don't think the Bush administration did.

i totally agree with this post...

go bowe
09-16-2011, 09:47 PM
Do you think everyone who hasn't experience war up close and personal would send people to war cavalierly? I certainly don't think the Bush administration did.

bush?

i thought it was the cheney administration...

NaptownChief
09-16-2011, 10:37 PM
The liberals in the media kiss Romney's ass and won't say anything bad about him because he is likely the only turd that the Dems could beat. The Dems are in deep shit because of Obamacare and here sits Romney who pushed the same type of crap through his state. He is a Mass. Mormon that the extreme religious right in the GOP party won't vote for, he played to a crowd on the "man made global warming" myth. Many of the things that the Dems are going to get killed on Romney is in the same boat. Dems will likely go out and vote in the GOP primes just to try and push this turd through like they did with McCain.

Dave Lane
09-16-2011, 10:40 PM
That's what i'm thinking.

I actually like some of his foreign policy decisions its the home front ones I find deplorable.

nstygma
09-17-2011, 02:44 AM
I actually like some of his foreign policy decisions its the home front ones I find deplorable.if his homefront ideas are way off in a ditch somewhere, and the current homefront ideas are way off in the opposite ditch, could the real results end up balancing out somewhere on pavement for once, if he's elected?

penchief
09-17-2011, 09:57 AM
This is not surprising since Romney is a progressive liberal and that's what a NeoCon is.
Although, flip-flopper Mitt could merely be pandering to the hawks on the right to win their approval.
They'll fall for it too, their bloodlust for killing as many Muslims as possible, whether they Arabs, Central Asian or Persian, overrides all other issues.

Stop with your bullshit. You wouldn't know what a liberal was if one was staring you in the face. You're 100% pure ideologue. Nobody takes what you say seriously anymore.

Dave Lane
09-17-2011, 10:03 AM
Romney is your nominee. Time to start loving on him because he's all you got.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2011, 10:04 AM
Stop with your bullshit. You wouldn't know what a liberal was if one was staring you in the face. You're 100% pure ideologue. Nobody takes what you say seriously anymore.

Well, I didn't just say "liberal" I said "progressive liberal." Progressives like to remake societies and states using govt for social enginerring. That means the use of force and violence. The NeoCons are a type of progressive. Just read the Second Inaugural address by Bush about remaking the world and taking out all rogue nations or leaders. That's his New World Order—something many of the left completely support. An an example is Obama doing Libya. Invasions and nation building are cool when you do it because of how you do it—with a multinational force instead of unilateral. That is the ONLY difference.

Other than that, you're a 100% ideologue too—not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just the kind of ideology you support. I happen to support what the anti-Federalist wing of our Founders and Farmers support—peace, liberty, trade with other nations, free-trade at home and limited govt.

BTW I never take anything seriously you say or what progressives like you say either. Attack, attack, attack—> you can't articulate an argument.
Thank you for conceding that.

Dave Lane
09-17-2011, 10:07 AM
if his homefront ideas are way off in a ditch somewhere, and the current homefront ideas are way off in the opposite ditch, could the real results end up balancing out somewhere on pavement for once, if he's elected?

Actually he's so far out there I think absolutely nothing would get done. He'd have dems and reps against him on everything and he'd veto all spending bills so the government would shut down we'd default on our debt and end once and for all the reign of the US as a world power.

That of course would be the first 48 hours, then things would get rough. LMAO

BucEyedPea
09-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Actually he's so far out there I think absolutely nothing would get done. He'd have dems and reps against him on everything and he'd veto all spending bills so the government would shut down we'd default on our debt and end once and for all the reign of the US as a world power.

That of course would be the first 48 hours, then things would get rough. LMAO

Nope, he'd get something done just not all of what he wanted. As president he could move troops and manage FP more. Outside of that there's a silver lining to not getting anything at all done, should that happen—at least no legislation is better than bad legislation.

But I think he'd get cooperation on repealing Obamacare and most of the horrific legislation and regulations passed under Obama to at least bring spending back to 2008 levels. I think we'd even be able to buy traditional lightbulbs again too.
These things alone are a good start.

patteeu
09-17-2011, 03:06 PM
Nope, he'd get something done just not all of what he wanted. As president he could move troops and manage FP more. Outside of that there's a silver lining to not getting anything at all done, should that happen—at least no legislation is better than bad legislation.

But I think he'd get cooperation on repealing Obamacare and most of the horrific legislation and regulations passed under Obama to at least bring spending back to 2008 levels. I think we'd even be able to buy traditional lightbulbs again too.
These things alone are a good start.

In other words, the things he'd be most able to do are the things he agrees with liberal democrats on.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2011, 05:01 PM
No what paleo-cons and real libertarians agree on. Ya' know classical liberals not progressive liberals aka the traditional old right stance on FP.

Whatta we gonna do with half educated modern ( neo) conservatives drinking Trotsky-flavored Kool-Aid?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2011, 05:27 PM
Good Read for you pat here, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/): Third Topic from the Top

patteeu
09-17-2011, 07:12 PM
No what paleo-cons and real libertarians agree on. Ya' know classical liberals not progressive liberals aka the traditional old right stance on FP.

Whatta we gonna do with half educated modern ( neo) conservatives drinking Trotsky-flavored Kool-Aid?

Yeah, paleo-cons like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and the gals from Code Pink.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/codepink4peace.org/img/original/LH_NYC_BirdDogHillary.jpg

Calcountry
09-17-2011, 07:36 PM
No what paleo-cons and real libertarians agree on. Ya' know classical liberals not progressive liberals aka the traditional old right stance on FP.

Whatta we gonna do with half educated modern ( neo) conservatives drinking Trotsky-flavored Kool-Aid?We need a program to keep track of all the meanings you pour into all these nomenclatures.

Dave Lane
09-17-2011, 09:45 PM
Seriously. Anyone have a printed matrix I can hang by my monitor to decipher BEP posts?

Brainiac
09-17-2011, 11:45 PM
The liberals in the media kiss Romney's ass and won't say anything bad about him because he is likely the only turd that the Dems could beat. The Dems are in deep shit because of Obamacare and here sits Romney who pushed the same type of crap through his state. He is a Mass. Mormon that the extreme religious right in the GOP party won't vote for, he played to a crowd on the "man made global warming" myth. Many of the things that the Dems are going to get killed on Romney is in the same boat. Dems will likely go out and vote in the GOP primes just to try and push this turd through like they did with McCain.
Wow, that's a lot of fail in a single post.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2011, 12:01 AM
Wow, that's a lot of fail in a single post.

I thought it was great—because it's mostly true. Why vote for Romney when we've got Obama?

Brainiac
09-18-2011, 12:30 AM
Romney is hardly the nominee who would be the easiest for Obama to beat. His biggest challenge is winning the nomination. If he is the Republican nominee, he'll win the general election in a landslide.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2011, 11:06 AM
Romney is hardly the nominee who would be the easiest for Obama to beat. His biggest challenge is winning the nomination. If he is the Republican nominee, he'll win the general election in a landslide.

Any generic Republican would win per polls anyway.

Too bad most voters are too stupid to recognize the simple idea that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior when the complain about Obamacare.

Saul Good
09-18-2011, 01:43 PM
Ron Paul is surging in the (straw) polls! In the latest scientific poll, however, Ron Paul is tied with Herman Cain for 5th place with 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/NYT_CBS_Republicans_0916.pdf

BucEyedPea
09-18-2011, 01:44 PM
Ron Paul is surging in the (straw) polls! In the latest scientific poll, however, Ron Paul is tied with Herman Cain for 5th place with 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/NYT_CBS_Republicans_0916.pdf

There's some claim that his real showing is being suppressed in polls. Don't know if true or not but it sounds like he's scaring the pants of the Big Govt Establishment Elites—the guys you support. Anyhow, they have to keep him uncovered in the MSM because the more people hear his views, the more people flock to him. People, like what he has to say on the issues the mainly matter. So the message has to be suppressed. This is why the Establishment is scared. Nut the New Media is more trusted than CBA, ABC, NBC and Fox—a good thing.

Remember when McCain was at around the same time....right up to the primary? Yeah, Guiliani was supposed to take it away. He lead right up to the voting. LMAO

Saul Good
09-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Paul is polling where he always has and always will. This isn't a conspiracy. He's run enough times before that he's a known quantity as a candidate. People don't vote for Ron Paul.

Brainiac
09-18-2011, 01:52 PM
Too bad most voters aren't stupid enough to vote for a kook like Ron Paul.

FYP