Romney: blatantly lies about "hunting life"

[fushigi]

Story.

BOSTON - To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck. ”I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life,” he said this week in Keene, N.H., to a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap. Yet the former Massachusetts governor’s hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia. <snip> Romney joined the NRA last August, signing up not just as a supporter but a designated ”Lifetime” member, and why he has softened his gun control positions.

Reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite.

NRA: "Hey Mitt, what did you do this summer?"
Romney: "I told you, I went hunting for wolverines with my uncle!"
NRA: "Did you shoot any?"
Romney: "Yeah, like 50! What would you do if they were comin after your cousin?"
NRA: "What did you use?"
Romney: "A friggin 12-gauge, what do you think! IDIOT!"

[fushigi]

Here's some more, same article. This is some funny shit.

During a 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, Romney positioned himself as a moderate outsider, warning special interest groups to stay out of the race and saying he supported the Brady gun control law and a ban on assault rifles. <snip> It’s a theme he carried into his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. At the time, Romney pledged to do nothing to change the state’s firearms statutes. ”We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety,” he said. True to his word, Romney went on to sign one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country.

[Osborn F Enready]

Which is why people who support individual rights, don't support Democrats or Republicans.

Their same old tactic.......

Say one thing... do another.

Impeach them all.

[Slevin57]

You say whatever will appeal to your voters and hope nobody notice's that you changed your position. I'd venture to say that by and large this works. Especially on smaller issues.

We only notice what were told to notice by the news. Perhaps 5 or 10 years down the road some people will read some books that tell you a little more about the issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

All we need to know to make an informed vote are voting records and/or prior actions of those who are running for office.

The littany of transgressions against the Constitutions, provable in voting records, should condemn ANY seated canidate, except Dr. No. (Ron Paul)

To be frank, I would rather have a non-incumbent than Paul, but Paul at least as an incumbent, has a record he can stand on without hypocrisy in the words he speaks.

I refuse to vote for another hypocrite, which rules out all Democrats, and all but one Republican.

[fushigi]

Dr. No indeed. Exactly.

Voting against everything may make you a maverick, but it doesn't prove leadership. I want a president who can actually inspire the people. In fact, I'd rather take a liar who motivated the people - like, say, Kennedy - over someone who tells the truth but can't lead.

Of course, we're off topic.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Romney: blatantly lies about "hunting life"

What should we expect from killers ... errr... hunters? And like Cheney wasn't a little drunk when he shot his friend in the face? I am sarcastically sure there were no lies by Cheney and his crew on that one. Just some good ol' boyz havin' fun and Dickin around with thar gunz.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: Dr. No indeed. Exactly. Voting against everything may make you a maverick, but it doesn't prove leadership.

That isn't what he is trying to PROVE. He is trying to do HIS JOB, which is protecting the rights of American citizens from over-reaching, over-intrusive central government and state government.

Its a false analogy to say he has no leadership ability because he refuses to break the laws of the Constitution, which is what he would be doing if he voted "yes" on 90% of the crap that gets passed as legislation today.

If you want to question Pauls leadership, I can respect and understand that, assuming of course you use a reasonable form of measure to identify the qualities of leadership you value. I don't think you did, or could, from that statement.

Fushigi said: I want a president who can actually inspire the people. In fact, I'd rather take a liar who motivated the people - like, say, Kennedy - over someone who tells the truth but can't lead.

Its that very mentality that has destroyed this nation.

Buying the sizzle over the steak, gets a flash in the pan of enjoyment, followed by a long and arduous period of dissapointment and regret.

We don't need more salesman, more "actors", more "mouthpieces" or windsocks who are good at "motivating" the sheeple.

Its the proverbial used car that breaks down as soon as it leaves the dealers lot. (or election day, in this case)

We need a figurehead of what America is, was, and always should be, which is the centerpiece of individual liberty in a world being transformed by the freedom of information, which we, France and others like us started.

The industrial revolution changed the world, but what it allowed brought about the biggest change the world has yet seen, which is near absolute freedom of information. Instead of seeking to limit that spread, we should be encouraging it. There is a thing such as private information, and always will be, as that is a natural right and a right most people exercise on a daily basis to some level of degree. However, the right to be informed of ones place in life amongst other lives and the constructs we form such as government, business, etc., is a huge and hungry market that can not, will not be quelled, and instead should be smartly encouraged as opposed to limited, as the limitation will only serve to turn the market against itself, creating yet another black market good to be traded for huge sums of black market money.

We need a leader who understands the damage of prohibition, the danger of entangling alliances, the dangers of mis-judging the will and intrests of the American people, and most importantly, the value which has made our nation great since its inception. The idea that all men are created equal, by nature, and entitled to equal rights as nature provided. That all men are DUE the respect of assumed innocence until proven guilty, and once their debt is paid to society, they are once again men whom are again equal amongst society. That justice eminates from the smallest units of any collective, which is what make the collectives possible, that being the individual. That as people, we are bound by common threads we all share, unique to man, but equal among man. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happniess as an individual, unfettered by the state unless the rights of others are not respected. The right to be free from taxation without representation, the right to an elected protector of rights, as opposed to an elected DEFINER of rights.
A government of checks and balances, with no supreme power to any one branch.


......

Sorry, rant over.

I will just finish with this quote, which I think is quite apropos:

“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
-George Santayana

Me thinks we have certainly forgotten our aim, especially when a nation is to expect that two representative parties that BARELY differ, could possibly adequately represent a nation of 300,000,000+ people.

[fushigi]

Osborn, I didn't mean leadership of Americans, I meant leadership of our other representatives.

Truth, honesty, supporting the wishes of our founding fathers and all that is great. But if a man lacks the charisma and technique to build a sufficient coalition that can get his agendas on the front burner, he's not a leader.

I don't think my ambition to see a motivational leader (even if that leader at times stretches the truth to provide the incentive for POSITIVE change) has anything to do with the decline of American liberty or anything like that. It takes leadership to build a coalition, and it takes a coalition to make change. I don't see Paul building that coalition.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: But if a man lacks the charisma and technique to build a sufficient coalition that can get his agendas on the front burner, he's not a leader.

It doesn't take a "coalition", and you know it. It takes money, and lots of it, and todays windsocks get it by placating easy to please Americans with money to spend, by telling them sweet little lies that makes them feel good for an hour after they give the money away, which is usually the time it takes for their mind to switch from politics to "whats on the tv tonight" or "how many stocks of mine made money today", or "don't forget to remind Suzy to pick up mom after dinner tomorrow, blah blah blah".

Ross Perot didn't have a coalition, he had money.

Once again, I think the problem is that Americans today are stupid, ignorant completely on politics by and large, and provingly so when questioned on the street about their own political system.

As I have said before.....

The problem is "little Jimmy" can recite all the top ball players, their salary, their brand of shoes, their favorite bling, and the music they prefer, but most can't tell you how many braches of government there are in this country, or name them. Most wouldn't know a right from a gift, and I would bet that out of ANY group you find yourself in, adult OR child, less than 3 can recite the bill of rights for context accuracy. The only group that might prove me wrong here, would be the kids in school who are about to take the test on that subject, in the week you ask them. It surely wouldn't be any political group in Washington.

THAT is the problem.

We have been duped, into trusting, and building the most all powerful government and military in the world, presiding over the largest amount of technology and wealth in the world, and lost the ability to control it, while we watched it happen. All for the false promise of security, investing in their childrens future, and providing a stable global economy..... HA.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

Fushigi said: I don't see Paul building that coalition.

I also don't see Paul sucking on the corporate lobbyist, or special intrest group tits, either. When you fund your campaign with "evil", is it a suprise when you get "evil" results?

Thats why you don't pick between the lesser of two evils, and "just say no" to evil.

Maybe THAT is what should tell you something, instead of the sizzle provided by the coalitions of groupies raised by the major parties who are pumping out attack ads, smear campaigns and high dollar advertisements in prime time, all in the name to "better America" of course...... Never mind that most of the damaging allegations are true, about both parties, they are still supposed to be the "best" we have to offer......

I could find better political contestants in the average alley, living in a dumpster, with rags for clothes and someone elses dentures for teeth.

An ultimatum between two parties of almost the same goals, is no choice.

[Derach]

Osborne - EXCELLENT POST ... I am also sick of the 'little white lie' mentality in gov't ... Be honest ... know that you're not going to please everybody, so don't try ... stand on your convictions, but be able to navigate the often cloudy waters of controversial and difficult issues ... That's what defines leadership ... not being able to make vague legal justifications behind questionably points of law to hold true to a party line or (more often) personal gain. Know when to be flexible and when to be firm, always with the genuine best interest of the country at heart. Why is that so F-in unrealistic about finding those characteristics in a leader? .... Ozzy said it .... partisan politics. Thanx Repubs and Dems alike for reducing us to this sad state of political affairs.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It doesn't take a "coalition", and you know it. It takes money, and lots of it

But to build governing coalitions you need money. Fushigi doesn't argue otherwise, from what I can gather of his argument. People will coalesce around a group of issues important to them. They will find leaders who can build bridges to other coalitions for the purpose of securing enough votes in Congress to pass legislation. Libertarians, if they ever gain popularity, will have to navigate the same environment. Building coalitions requires compromise (ie "politics"). I don't see a man like Ron Paul having the ability to put together such coalitions, but he is certainly willing to join them. Paul and Neil Abercrombie, a very liberal congressman from Hawaii, work together to oppose the Iraq War. Paul is a joiner, not a builder.

As for the money part, we've been down this road before. Unless we pass comprehensive campaign finance reform, including publicly financed elections, money will continue to be the mother's milk of American politics. Unfortunately, folks like Paul and many other Libertarians oppose such government intervention in elections. It's ironic. They complain about money and yet do everything possible to keep the status quo intact.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ross Perot didn't have a coalition, he had money.

No. Perot bought a coalition with money. He formed his own party and gathered signatures to get his name on the ballot. He targeted swing states. He appealed to conservative Republicans with his limited government rhetoric, so much so that Bush I lost much of his core support. Ross Perot did the Democratic Party, and our nation, a good service IMO.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Once again, I think the problem is that Americans today are stupid, ignorant completely on politics by and large, and provingly so when questioned on the street about their own political system.

This comment is the problem with most Libertarians. They express utter contempt for "the sheeple" while trying to woo the same to their candidates. Calling your opponents "stupid and ignorant" plays well on an internet bulletin board, but not in the real world of politics.

[brien]

Romney is a liar like most every other politican. Let the politician who doesn't lie, cast the first stone.

[Osborn F Enready]

The Decider said: But to build governing coalitions you need money. Fushigi doesn't argue otherwise, from what I can gather of his argument. People will coalesce around a group of issues important to them. They will find leaders who can build bridges to other coalitions for the purpose of securing enough votes in Congress to pass legislation. Libertarians, if they ever gain popularity, will have to navigate the same environment.

Building economic support coalitions should not be an issue, it should be an issue of public representation. I understand your points, and I agree that in the current political enviroment, the enviroment has little to do with politics, and a lot to do with corporate/special intrest favors and money and crony backwashing come voting time.

While I agree, and Ron Paul has proven by being a lonely member representing individual rights and Constitutional justice, that support is needed to make change. But, getting people out there, like Paul, in whatever number can be achieved, who make valid, reasoned, logical points ON THE FLOOR, in the records, is what brings about change. People need to be on the floor to counter the idiocy that is proposed by the two major parties as "valid" legislation, if for no other reason, that limited time viewers who can hear it, can hear the voice of reason present in the discussion, and how its rebutted by the "major parties". The discussion that has been taking place in Congress and the Senate for the last few decades is terrible, and a shame on the idea of open debate, public representation and open citizen access to government.

I agree, to make change you need support. To get the voice of reason out there and expose the scham that is being presented by the two parties, takes only an educated few. Once the scham is fully exposed, perhaps it won't be hard to find the canidates and votes needed to put them in office?
Most of our problems stem from lack of choice come election time, lack of honestly managed and accurately recountable elections, and lack of information. Having one or two in there, debating on a daily basis, helps on the "information" end and opens the door for more possibility.

The Decider said: Building coalitions requires compromise (ie "politics"). I don't see a man like Ron Paul having the ability to put together such coalitions, but he is certainly willing to join them. Paul and Neil Abercrombie, a very liberal congressman from Hawaii, work together to oppose the Iraq War. Paul is a joiner, not a builder.

Well, thats a judgement call, and while I can see your point of view, I don't agree, nor do I draw the same conclusions.

I would agree that Paul faces one of the largest challenges when it comes to raising money and public support, but that is because we the public are failing in demanding the stop of this idea that our elections should be run by "so-called" private money, yet allowing corporations and special intrests to be viewed as "private money" equal to the representation of that of the average citizen.

The Decider said: As for the money part, we've been down this road before. Unless we pass comprehensive campaign finance reform, including publicly financed elections, money will continue to be the mother's milk of American politics. Unfortunately, folks like Paul and many other Libertarians oppose such government intervention in elections. It's ironic. They complain about money and yet do everything possible to keep the status quo intact.

This is one area where Libertarians are divided. On every Libertarian site I have participated in, there has been a clear divide among this issue, and a lot of it is usually due to the way corporate money, special intrest money is put in the same pot as "citizen" money and called "private money" for the purpose of elections.

Even on Volconvo, there are both sides of the coin represented among Libertarians. That would be a hell of a debate to have, and the good thing, Libertarians would demand on actually HAVING the debate, instead of running and hiding from important issues like Republicans and Democrats.

The Decider said: No. Perot bought a coalition with money. He formed his own party and gathered signatures to get his name on the ballot. He targeted swing states. He appealed to conservative Republicans with his limited government rhetoric, so much so that Bush I lost much of his core support. Ross Perot did the Democratic Party, and our nation, a good service IMO.

I agree he did a great service to the nation. He showed that people still support the idea of "limited government" in large number. He showed that people still value the idea of third party. He showed that people still value debate over BS, and Perot interjected issues that neither the Dems or Repubs wanted to talk about.

Overall, he failed, but he showed many valuable lessons to people who value the idea of limited government, Constitutional justice and Individual Rights. No denying that.

Also hard not to notice that the corporate big-boys didn't mind helping Perot, because he let them, but most of the Libs won't allow that help because of the strings that come attached.

What lesson wasn't learned, at least by the American voters?

The Decider said: This comment is the problem with most Libertarians. They express utter contempt for "the sheeple" while trying to woo the same to their candidates. Calling your opponents "stupid and ignorant" plays well on an internet bulletin board, but not in the real world of politics.

As if Democrats and Republicans don't, not that it makes it "politically correct". I think many Libertarians are offended at the idea of "political correctness" in a land that is built on the idea of free-speech.

I use the term sheeple, because it almost perfectly describes a hybrid of blind-faith based on ignorance married to the average American who can't name the three branches of government, but claims to be a Patriot and value rights, which in most cases they can't define.

Sheeple are a by-product of a pampered, out of touch electorate, not touched by the cost of liberty or REAL sacrifice for which the value of information and a free press are defined. People who claim they value individual rights on camera, but seek to undermine them with every legal loophole and abridgement they can muster to suit their own subjective ends.

Yea....it may be a little harsh, but the fact is there are a LOT of them.

If you seriously wish to contend that, I urge you to engage in political discussion with random people on a regular basis out amongst the public.

I have, and have for many years, probably about five years seriously, but personally since I have been in the public service industry, which was about 20 of my 30 or so jobs.

Let me ask you this Decider.....

Based on what you know of the general public, would you be confident in getting a fair trial by your peers, that are truly concerned of your plight, but also of the law, reasoning of the laws, and justice of the laws? Would you seek an ability to ensure the judge would inform the jury of their right to nullify if they felt the law was unjust, as applied, in this case? Would you contest the judge if he refused to inform the jury?

How many people do you know, who have gone through the justice system lately? For what types of cases? What were the results, justice, or insulting?

[Chris]

Quote by: fushigi Story.Reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite. NRA: "Hey Mitt, what did you do this summer?" Romney: "I told you, I went hunting for wolverines with my uncle!" NRA: "Did you shoot any?" Romney: "Yeah, like 50! What would you do if they were comin after your cousin?" NRA: "What did you use?" Romney: "A friggin 12-gauge, what do you think! IDIOT!"

This is gold!

aside: hey fushigi, can you get me a Chinese bootleg of Napoleon Dynamite DVD?

[fushigi]

Whatever ju need mang. I'll start looking - normally it's easier to find stuff that's been released recently, but there are always some holdovers hidden away.

[Mr.Vicchio]

And Romney has yet to inspire the Base anyway, I don't see this as being of any real importance. It just further cements he's not as Right as we want our '08 candidate to be

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider As for the money part, we've been down this road before. Unless we pass comprehensive campaign finance reform, including publicly financed elections, money will continue to be the mother's milk of American politics. Unfortunately, folks like Paul and many other Libertarians oppose such government intervention in elections. It's ironic. They complain about money and yet do everything possible to keep the status quo intact.

In a debate with Joel Hefley in, as I recall, 1990, he, even being a consummate Republican, stated that he thought we should have government financed elections. Interestingly, virtually every response he gave started with "I agree with this gentleman (pointing at me), BUT ...".

I ask him, as an aside, since I never got the opportunity in the debate itself, if he thought that I, as a Libertarian, should get the same amount of the "public" election financing as he and the Democrat would get. His answer was, "Of course not". To which I responded, "Why not?". He never gave me an answer to that.

Public financing of elections will simply be used as a tool to further entrench the incumbent politicians and the incumbent parties, as has every other attempt at election reform.

Why would you fight to help those criminals stay in power?

Keith

[sevendogs]

So what? NRA is a nasty organization anyway. How about his attitude towards animal rightism?

[fushigi]

Huh?