Skip to content

Mitt Romney? OK, Look…

November 3, 2012

Well, the election is just days away and I am BAFFLED at how many independents have decided to support Mitt Romney. To those who are doing so because they believe he somehow represents free markets or capitalism more so than the president, I say mark my words: Mitt Romney is no more capitalist, and no less socialist than Barack Obama. I’ll say it again. ROMENY IS NO MORE CAPITALIST AND NO LESS SOCIALIST THAN OBAMA. He is a classic big government, neoconservative, Rockefeller republican, even if he claims not to be. Remember, George W. Bush ran on a small government, non-interventionist platform and he turned out to be fascist scum.  American’s should have known better then, and we certainly ought to know better today.

Mitt Romney is a man with offshore accounts, who makes more money in one hour than you and I will make in  1-2 years. He gets to pay 13% in taxes while the rest of us are stuck paying up to a third of our incomes, and won’t release any his prior tax returns, which would reveal all of his tax dodging activities in the Caribbean. He distanced himself from Bush during the campaign, with good reason (really, how bad was it if our own republican presidents and VPs aren’t even invited to the Republican National Convention one cycle ahead?), but he is a part of the same club, and he STOLE the primary election from Ron Paul, one of the only real conservatives left.

Here is a video of the good doctor explaining what neoconservative republicans like Mitt Romney really are, and another that documents this establishment in the act of ROBBING HIM OF THE NOMINATION:

Ron Paul on Neoconservatives:

RNC destroying democracy – 

By the way, Romney’s family is also part owner of the company which builds our voting machines, but that’s paranoid, right? Look into it and decide for your self –

While I don’t believe in punishing those who become wealthy through legitimate means,  people like Mitt Romney are the scum of the earth. Yes, free loaders exist in our culture and our system both encourages and perpetuates it. But do you know how cartoonish your imagination has to be to believe that they make up 47% of the country, or that 40+ million people are uninsured and 20 million unemployed because they’re lazy, or that mass poverty comes from those who are living in it? He has  also stated that as commander and chief he would consult his lawyers to reach his BUSINESS decisions regarding war. He has NO interest in bringing our sons and daughters home from any of our privatized wars. But what more could we expect from a regular Bilderberg Conference attendee? –

Yes, foreign dictators are scum too, but Mitt won’t hesitate to get in bed with them, just like every Neocon before him has. Figures like Saddam Hussein always start out as our friend and we help them into power, usually because there’s an alternative figure who wants to give the country’s oil and resources to its own citizens without letting other countries interfere. Once we help overthrow and/or assassinate that person, we give our new friends weapons to maintain their power in exchange for cooperation, until they become too power hungry and we have to bomb and reoccupy the region to maintain OUR control –

Thank you Ron Paul for not even flirting with the idea of an endorsement, and damn you Rand for encouraging the lesser of two evils mentality among independents. Mitt Romney does not represent free markets or capitalism, and why is it that people can accept socialism for the rich, when socialism for poor is supposed to be the most vile thing on the planet? We’ve seen how much Romney despises THAT kind of socialism (,, but what about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich? Why doesn’t that bother the free market fundamentalists? Aren’t these the  same people who told me that socialism is socialism? What kind of socialism could possibly be worse? Canadian style healthcare? If we didn’t have socialism for the rich, we wouldn’t need socialism for the poor. One way or another you are voting for both-


If Romney wins, people like me will be blamed. They’ll say, “See? You should have voted for Obama. Now we’re stuck in these wars indefinitely.” But if Obama wins those in power will still find some justification to keep us at war indefinitely WITH PUBLIC SUPPORT, even if that means conducting false flag terrorism at home or abroad. Of course we’ll have no way to prove this and the so-called anti-war movement will rise out of its slumber and begin protesting once again, because now it will be happening under a republican instead of a democrat. What an effective manipulation tool this corporate-owned two-party system has provided the machine…

If you’re a progressive, please check out my essay: 24 Reasons for Liberals to Write In Ron Paul or Refuse To Vote In 2012. If you’re a conservative please get a grip and don’t even CONSIDER voting for anyone other than Ron Paul, or someone like him. If you want ANY HOPE for the word republican to have some credibility behind it again, take this opportunity to let the republican establishment self destruct, and resurrect itself with the grass-roots intellectual freedom and liberty supporters. Modern conservatism is too far got to fix from within and the same can be said about modern day liberalism as well.

I leave you with some videos of Ron Paul intellectually pummeling Mitt Romney. Happy voting!

Paul destroying Romney:

Body slamming Mitt:

Romney Turns His Back on Dying Patient:

Paul vs Establishment:

For Freedom (Ron Paul documentary):

P.S. Here is some important recent information copied from Ron Paul’s Site: 

-Why Romney Doesn’t Need the Liberty Movement

Mitt Romney’s political career is a testament to the fact that he would say and do anything to get elected. If he believed that gaining some of the votes of the 5+ million Ron Paul supporters in this country would have been worth the effort of reaching out to Ron Paul and the liberty movement, Romney would not have hesitated to have done so.

But hesitate he did. And not just that… he went on to viciously and repeatedly spit in the collective faces of Ron Paul and his supporters.

Does Romney believe that the morally bankrupt rallying cry “But we have to defeat Obama!” will be sufficient for the liberty movement to hold its nose and vote for Mitt?

Romney is an intelligent and calculating man, so he must know that this will work only with a small percentage of the movement.

This leaves only one possible conclusion:

Romney already knows that he is going to win, and that he can do so without the liberty movement’s support.

Rand Paul basically said the same thing just a couple of days ago: My prediction, and of course I could be wrong, but my prediction is that this is going to be 1980. This is going to be an election that was projected to be very close, we have all these battleground states, but in the end Romney is going to pull away and he’s going to win by a bigger percentage than anyone predicts, because I think the polling is modeling on 2008 and not really factoring in an enormous wave of Election 2010, and I think that we’re still headed in that same direction.”

If Rand’s assessment is correct and if Romney has victory in the bag, then there is no reason for Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney just to get Obama out of office.

More than 20,000 Ron Paul supporters have already pledged to cast a principled vote for Ron Paul even in the face of electoral defeat. That’s commendable and wonderful. Others are supporting Gary Johnson to help strengthen the largest third party. A few will still be voting for Romney because they hate Obama or believe that Romney is the lesser of two evils. And some Ron Paul supporters are even strategically rooting for Obama, saying that the inevitable backlash against a second term would lay the groundwork for a Ron Paul comeback in 2016.

-Ron Paul is an official write in candidate in several states, but that’s entirely due to his supporters’ efforts. Ron Paul did not discourage these efforts but he stated very clearly that he is not actively participating.

Ron Paul: “I get a lot of questions on that, a lot of phone calls and emails, and people sometimes want me to sign something, to fully endorse it as a legal matter. But I haven’t signed anything, so I neither encourage it nor discourage it, because of the frustration, because in some places they won’t count the votes. But if people feel totally exasperated and still want the satisfaction of doing something, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with it. But I don’t ever want to lead people to deception like, “Oh yea, if we have this write in campaign and all of a sudden major things will happen”. And that’s not true. If there is a write in campaign, those individuals that are doing it, the most important thing is to hold their feet to the fire and make them count them. But they don’t [count them]. Politics is not always a very clean business. That’s why it’s a lot easier to deal with philosophy than it is with politics. Politics is a tool but it’s not necessarily an end. The end is changing the philosophy. So if these campaigns one way or the other can get attention to serve the issues then I think it’s worthwhile.”

-Ron Paul has not endorsed anyone and he did not reveal who he will be voting for, or if he is going to be voting at all.

Ron Paul: “I haven’t decided yet, at least I have decided not to announce it, so I’m going to sort of sit tight for a little bit longer. […] I haven’t announced support for Romney, that means it’s very unlikely, and I don’t think anybody thinks I’m going to vote for Obama. It’s back to that frustration level of not seeing a dramatic choice in the way the system works.”

-Ron Paul said a few nice words about Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, but they do not amount to an endorsement.

Ron Paul: I think [Gary Johnson] is wonderful and I think he’s doing a good job, and people should look at him, and every individual should make up their own mind.

-Ron Paul recently stated that Romney might be better on taxes and Obama might be better on foreign policy. But none of that can be construed as an endorsement.

Ron Paul: Would Romney be better for America than Obama? I think not necessarily, no. (Applause) Is that a gentle no? (Laughter) And the reason I say a little bit is, maybe in some areas he might be a little better, and maybe in other areas Obama might be a little bit better. The odds of us expanding war and getting in more trouble is worse with Romney. When it comes to maybe hitting you with a higher tax, you’re a little bit better off with Romney.


From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. hear hear !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: