Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Santorum: "It's BullS$%T!"

March 26, 2012 @ 7:32 am

Much is being made of Rick Santorum calling "Bullsh#t!" on a NYT reporter who asked him about his statement that "Romney was the worst Republican in the country." Santorum berated the reporter for misquoting him and "lying." Santorum said he was talking about the health care issue and that he didn't say "Romney was the worst Republican in the country" but that "Romney as the worst Republican in the country to challenge Obama on health care." The video shows Santorum is right, but will his irritation with the media hurt him?

To a certain extent it doesn't matter. At this point Santorum needs over 70% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. It will not happen. In his crushing victory in Louisiana, he'll only get about 66% of the proportional delegates at stake and he not get margins like that outside of the South. However, his campaign's effort is pivoting in the same direction as Newt's--namely, not to win, but to prevent Romney from winning. That's a more difficult prospect, and an outburst like this might give the impression that he's cracking under the pressure--losing his cool.

But I'm not so sure.

Santorum has the reputation as a goody-two-shoes. Santorum already has the evangelical vote under wraps and they're not going to leave him for this. This shows a guy with a real (and under control) temper calling B.S. as he sees it. Who knows? Maybe it will make some give him a second look who've had reservations about Romney?

Ultimately though, while seeking to keep Romney from the nomination, Santorum has to keep in mind the ultimate objective. If he seeks to mortally wound Romney's campaign but fails to keep him from the nomination, Santorum becomes Obama's best friend.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (59)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Santorum and Gingrich would do well to remember....
    March 26, 2012 6:52 am
    any garbage they dump on Romney, a fellow Republican, is going to be much more believable than if the Obama campaign said the very same thing.

    We expect opposing political parties to lie, usually viciously, about each others candidates. As always, the drinkers of the Red or Blue Kool Aid will suck in every lie, every distortion of fact, every unfounded rumor painting the opposition in an unfavorable light as the absolute truth.

    Mr. Boze is correct. Trashing Romney too badly at this point, when any hope of another candidate securing the nomination has essentially evaporated, can only damage Republican chances next November and improve the odds of reelecting Obama.

    I'd bet my house that the DNC is digitally archiving all of the nasty, destructive things Santorum and Gingrich are saying about Romney. Easy campaign ad: "Thinking of voting for Governor Romney? Here's what members of his own party have to say about Mitt....."

    The Democrats don't even need to directly trash Romney, just replay all the crud said by his fellow Republicans!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    Fellas, it just doesnt get any better than this..
    March 26, 2012 7:26 am
    What could have been a nice match up between opposing political standoffs from each party, has now become a bad reality show with two red tie candidates gnawing each others legs off, all the while further destroying the Republican party and whats left of its platform.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    anotherfencewalker.....it's far from over
    March 26, 2012 7:46 am
    simply because the Republicans are in disarray in March doesn't mean it's going to be a cakewalk for Obama.

    Once the R's have settled on a candidate, and assuming they avoid the suicide of a third party challenge from the Tea Party or the Fundies, they will aim their guns squarely at Obama. Certainly hundreds of millions will be spent slamming, damning, and pilloring the President (some of which he probably deserves).

    Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate or the ability of $HUGE to sway public opinion.

    The biggest mistake the D's could make right now is to assume that the dissension among the R's ensures they will have an easy time of it in November. The anti-Obama press has really fired up the emotions of its target audience.(As seen right here in this forum).

    A Romney presidency remains a reasonable possibility. Assuming he gets the nod, I'll have to carefully consider which candidate is most worthy of support. I have been known to vote for moderate Republicans. The fact that the most extreme members of the Republican party hate Romney with a vile passion increases his appeal.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Santorium was right?
    March 26, 2012 7:34 am
    You must have been watching a video other than the one you linked above. Rick said Romney was the worst Republican in the country to run against Obama. Not a peep about healthcare.

    He began talking about healthcare when he was throwing his tantrum, but not during the speech. At least that is what the clip showed.

    I think you and Rick are the ones doing the spinning, not that NYTimes reporter.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    going after Newt's voters.
    March 26, 2012 7:37 am
    never thought of that, but if Rick already has a lock on the evangelicals, why not go after die hard Gingrich voters ? .. Especially since Newt seems to be backing off a bit lately. .... Yah, Mitt probably does get it, but Rick's insults will be about as well remembered in October as 9-9-9 is remembered today. .. And if (when) Obama plays with sound bites, a good sound mixer can take anything to mean anything as it is already.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    I'm surprised that Boze didn't invoke the .....
    March 26, 2012 8:39 am
    I'm surprised that Boze didn't invoke the standard 'liberal media' and 'gotcha journalism' rhetoric that the right uses every time that either a BS question is asked (or more frequently a hard question that the candidate won't or can't answer and stay within thier carefully framed image)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Birdonawire wrote...
    Projection much Bill?
    March 26, 2012 8:43 am
    Maybe you've already forgotten Willard's attack ad on Obama?

    Same crap different party. Neither side has all the answers.

    Btw Bill, you make solid points right up till you start with the namecalling crap, then I tune you out.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    @bill Law
    March 26, 2012 8:46 am
    sorry to tell you this but the Democrats won't have to lie. Republicans want to: Strip 3 million needy people of their insurance. Cave to big Insurance companies by repealing the Preexisting conditions clause. Go to war with Iran. Give the 1% even more tax breaks, while de-funding basic education. Strip women of their health care benefits for contraception, while leaving Mens unchanged. Allow more pipeline to be built for Oil exporters to reap more profits by selling off American oil to the highest bidder. WHY Lie? this is too easy. No mainstream American would sell off his country, or throw it's poor into the streets so the 1% can get richer.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    You're no Newt, Rick
    March 26, 2012 10:48 am

    And people like to point out how sensitive *Romney* can get when asked tough questions?! Give me a break! No irritation Romney's ever shown to a reporter even comes *close* to this childish outburst of Santorum's. Denial? Yup. Ad hominem attacks? Yup. Petulant body language? Uh-huh.

    Add to that the fact that he couldn't even remember what he'd actually *said* during his speech (the reporter had quoted him accurately, if incompletely), and you have a man totally unprepared to weather the media hurricane headed his way in the neigh-impossible eventuality that he nabs the nomination.

    And don't even get me started on the level of self-righteous arrogance necessary for Santorum to keep attempting to bodyslam Romney in the face of Romney's imminent victory. Should Santorum oppose Romney? Of course. Should he call him "the worst Republican in the country"? Only if he wants four more years of Obama. The man's sight is becoming just as short as that of Gingrich.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Newt, except.....
    March 26, 2012 11:05 am
    I've said a few times that Rick is a bit immature. Which is why with Newt apparently giving up (but someone please tell HIM), Mitt gets it. The stakes here are too high. I'll go with Mitt for up to 8 years better than giving the two-bit Chicago ward boss another 4. ........... Too bad most people see only one great president every 50 years or so. That means we have 10-20 years still to go.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ron p
    March 26, 2012 2:00 pm
    THe last Great POTUS was FDR and that was well over 50 yrs.Hopefully you have not bought in to the Reagan was Great baloney because he certainly was far from that lofty spot.When Ronnie left office he had run up the US debt to a higher level then every other POTUS in history COMBINED
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    FDR vs RR
    March 26, 2012 4:01 pm
    Sorry to pop your balloon, but even most liberal historians rate Reagan quite high. .. OK, mostly for ending the Cold War, but that little trick would have saved us trillions had Bush I actually taken advantage of what was called the war dividend. ... FDR is recorded as great mainly as he was President during WWII. The New Deal never did get us out of the depression until the war started and ran up quite a debt himself. .. Reagan took over during the Carter recession and was out of it by 1983 (2+ years), and usually didn't waste his and our time by constantly blaming Carter. .. It has been 3+ years now, and Obama has brought us little nearer recovery - and is still blaming Bush II. ......... I would, however, take time now to retract my insult of two-bit Chicago ward bosses. Sorry I compared you to Obama.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron
    March 26, 2012 5:57 pm
    Gorbachev ended the cold war in 1991, not RR. Just thought you might want to get your facts straight.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ cigarfan
    March 26, 2012 6:37 pm

    Uh-huh. Because Gorbachev chose to lose the Cold War, is that right?

    Gimme a break.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Gundy
    March 27, 2012 5:46 pm
    exactly! Gorbachev decided (wisely) that to mimic U.S. behavior would only end in massive economic debt.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ cigarfan
    March 27, 2012 6:16 pm

    Um ... no.

    By the '80s, the Soviet economy was in the tank thanks to the amazing ability of communism and power-consolodation to de-incentivize ambition and the work ethic. The USSR simply couldn't keep pace with US economic and technological development, especially after Reagan kicked both our economy and our arms buildup into high gear. Gorbachev, trying to stimulate his economy, lifted his iron boot off the necks of his people just long enough for them to throw it off altogether. The ensuing civil unrest lead to one of the most epic non-violent political disintegrations in history. The USSR broke up into fifteen independent republics, and from that moment ceased to be a global superpower. America outlived its only rival and has kept growing ever since.

    And you're trying to tell me that Gorbachev ended the Cold War on *his* terms? Are you out of your mind??

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Gundy
    March 27, 2012 7:53 pm
    What RR kicked into high gear was the national debt. Everything you wrote is pretty much right, you just draw the wrong conclusions at the end (and use insults instead of explanation.)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ cigarfan
    March 28, 2012 10:09 am

    I never said anything about the national debt. I don't deny that it spiked during Reagan's tenure. But so what? That's entirely beside the point. At the outset of this exchange, you implied that Gorbachev *chose* to end the Cold War on *his* terms. You said this in an attempt to discredit ron prevost's contention that Reagan won the Cold War. I've merely been pointing out that Gorbachev deserves zero credit for his decision to give up that war, because Reagan forced him to do it. To say otherwise is ... well, something you'd consider an insult. ;-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Gundy
    March 28, 2012 3:45 pm
    You wrote "Gorbachev deserves zero credit for his decision to give up that war, because Reagan forced him to do it." That's like saying because Reagan decided to jump off a cliff, Gorbachev was forced to stand on the edge of the cliff and watch. The real question is, who is wiser?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ cigarfan
    March 28, 2012 7:50 pm

    Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Cold War ended in Gorbachev's favor? Do you actually think he's happy about the way things played out? Are you really saying he wouldn't have done the same things that Reagan did had he been capable of them?

    I think not.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    the cold war
    March 26, 2012 6:58 pm
    The cold war was over long before 1991. That is when the USSR collapsed into several independent states, including Russia. But Gorbi had given up at least a couple of years prior. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 - so did we still have a Cold War until 1991 ? .. And even if the USSR had stayed intact as such, Reagan and Gorbachev effectively had already made peace. ............... By the war, I meant to say that Bush I squandered the PEACE dividend.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    March 27, 2012 5:49 pm
    The Berlin wall fell under Bush, not RR. The USSR was unanimously segregated under Gorbachev in 1991, not RR.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    still no cigar
    March 28, 2012 4:28 am
    never said it didn't. And Bush I is still pissed that no one gave him credit. But everything was in place before Reagan left office. A joint effort between Reagan and Gorbachev. .............. WWII ended under Truman. Do you also give no credit to FDR ?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Gorbachev ended the cold war in 1991
    March 27, 2012 10:33 am
    Only because the Soviet Union could not keep up with the American free market and the money we were making and spending on weapons that bankrupt the Communists.

    Incredible the ministry of propaganda rewrite of our history. I suppose that Obama killed Hitler with his bare hands. Why not?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Lord Ha ha! at least gets the subject title correct
    March 27, 2012 5:44 pm
    We finally agree on something! Only because the soviet union understood that America was going to commit economic suicide and building a national debt of unprecedented proportions.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    "Santorum has to keep in mind the ultimate objective."
    March 26, 2012 1:34 pm
    Yes, the all important ultimate objective... Get the red hatted banker stooge in as opposed to the blue hatted one.

    As long as you think you have a choice you'll keep lining up to be fleeced...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    March 26, 2012 3:05 pm

    I have a lot of respect for your intelligence, but man, can't you see the writing on the wall? Romney has 503 delegates after winning 16 state primaries. Paul has 27 delegates after winning zero state primaries. At this point, there are only three relevant presidential candidates: Romney, Santorum, and Obama. Those are your options. They aren't perfect options, and I know you don't think they're even good options. But they're the only options. Either choose one of those options, or become utterly irrelevant.

    Politics isn't about what's ideal; it's about what's possible. Fallible humans - especially when presented with power - will *never* be ideal. That's why the only thing we need concern ourselves with is identifying the least-screwed-up candidate who's actually viable. If you think all your options are "banker stooges," then set that criterium aside, figure out how the candidates *are* different, and make. a. decision. Whining about everyone except the quixotic Ron Paul is a colossal waste of your time.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Gundy
    March 26, 2012 5:23 pm

    Yeah, I like roomtemp too, he appears to be at least honest if I don't agree with everything he has to say.

    Paul is a dead man walking as far as the presidential campaign is concerned, I am from the school were I feel that I will succeed in any economic ideology AS LONG as they don't legislate anything that will give someone else an unfair advantage that I don't have, specifically the tax breaks and subsidy's for the winners that the government chooses.

    I would have strongly considered paul if he had won the nomination for one simple reason, his honestly. That goes a long way for me more than anything else.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    March 27, 2012 1:24 am
    "Either choose one of those options, or become utterly irrelevant."

    No, I refuse those 'options', because they're not options at all. The entire voting public/process is what has become irrelevant. The Apollo alliance, Center for American progress, and lobby friends galore, write laws that congress doesn't even read before signing. The central banking system conjures money from nothing and loans it at interest while you work for your ever diluted share. Irrelevant he says? ahahahaha...

    "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild (The father of modern central banking)

    You won't hear me whining about Paul anymore. I quit, I'm sick of trying to wake people up anyway. They'll figure it out while standing in line for government cheese rations I guess. I make no promises not to bash the current selections though. ;-)

    You can pretend you're relevant if you want to. You can pretend that Romney or Obama will save us from certain economic collapse. I have no such illusions. At the end of day the only things that are relevant to me are my conscience and honor. Neither of those will allow me to vote for any of the current *cough* choices.

    I've been looking at relocating for a while anyway. With any luck, this will be the last election I vote in and I won't be around when the welfare/warfare state collapses in on itself.

    Good luck to you...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Are you giving up your citizenship Roomtemp
    March 27, 2012 6:47 am

    I am sadden that you have quit, I am even more sadden that you will give up your citizenship because of the political structure and the inability of "your guy" to win the nomination.

    I hope that you have all the success that you are looking for as a foriegn national.

    Peace

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @sportsguru...
    March 28, 2012 4:11 pm
    I would probably try to go dual citizenship at first if I could. But eventually yeah, if things work out OK I'd have no problem giving up my citizenship. At this point it's hard to think of anything I'd 'lose' by doing so. I could probably get a visa to visit remaining family.

    It's not a question of 'my guy' not winning. And it's not one of those 'if Obama wins I'm leaving things.' Frankly there isn't anyone with enough balls to do what needs to be done, and scant public support for it either. So, I don't think it matters much who wins. People think the gravy train is endless apparently (I know that's gonna drive neocons nuts but there isn't much policy difference between Obama and Bush. Even the increased spending is pretty much on the curve.)

    You may think of it as the rat leaving the sinking ship if you wish. There is no malice, just a very bad feeling about where we're going and a strong desire not to see it happen.

    Don't be sad for me though. I'll scrape by wherever I'm at. With an occasional blessing and little help from my friends, I always do. My needs are few.

    Instead, be sad for a country that makes its children no longer feel welcome...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    March 27, 2012 9:59 am

    I think you may be suffering from a lack of perspective. If all you ever think about is recent history, I can understand why you'd get so fatalistic. But if you'd widen your gaze to include the aeons before Reagan, you might realize we've been in far worse spots as a nation.

    If you'd lived in the 1930s, for instance, you would've been ruled by the president who created Social Security, "stacked" the Supreme Court, and considered his executive powers to be functionally unlimited. If you'd lived in the 1920s, you would've languished under a Constitutional Amendment that made it illegal to sell alcohol. If you'd lived in the 1860s, you would've experienced what it was like for Americans to slaughter 625,000 of their fellow countrymen over the question of whether people could enslave each other. If you'd lived in the 1770s, you would've been oppressed by a monarch across the Atlantic who thought it was okay to take your money without giving you a voice in his government. If you'd lived during the Dark Ages, chaos and oppression would've been all you expected from life.

    I'm not telling you all this because I want you to become complacent with our current crop of problems. I'm telling you all this because I want to give you hope. We threw off the shackles of Imperial Britain, reunited with our violent secessionists, repealed the 18th Amendment, and stood up to FDR. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean they can't smarten up. Disaster is never more than one generation away, but neither is shining success.

    I cannot tell you how irritated I get when conservatives bemoan the fact that our president doesn't make like Reagan and tell us that America's best days are yet to come. It's like they'll only believe it if their leader says it's so. What lack of vision! What childish dependance! What unwillingness to take the initiative and actually lead themselves!

    Don't be like them, roomtemp. You're stronger than that. You can see farther, if you choose. You can help the rest of us right this wayward ship of state, but only if you turn around and face the liberals trying to shove you off the end of the plank by sheer attrition. Don't give up and leap into the cold waves of irrelevancy. Draw your sword and come back to the fight!

    If you think I'm just full of it - that I've deluded myself into believing I can make a difference - then you need to spend some time gazing into the abyss of Socialist Europe, where good men still fight and die in the face of overwhelming odds. Don't believe me? Visit Daniel Hannan's channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/DanHannanMEP and be sure to watch the speech he delivered at this year's CPAC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujuEpGmKMg

    If he can continue to stand, what's your excuse for running?

    P.S. Out of curiosity, where have you been planning to run off to, anyway?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    March 27, 2012 10:02 am

    I think you may be suffering from a lack of perspective. If all you ever think about is recent history, I can understand why you'd get so fatalistic. But if you'd widen your gaze to include the aeons before Reagan, you might realize we've been in far worse spots as a nation.

    If you'd lived in the 1930s, for instance, you would've been ruled by the president who created Social Security, "stacked" the Supreme Court, and considered his executive powers to be functionally unlimited. If you'd lived in the 1920s, you would've languished under a Constitutional Amendment that made it illegal to sell alcohol. If you'd lived in the 1860s, you would've experienced what it was like for Americans to slaughter 625,000 of their fellow countrymen over the question of whether people could enslave each other. If you'd lived in the 1770s, you would've been oppressed by a monarch across the Atlantic who thought it was okay to take your money without giving you a voice in his government. If you'd lived during the Dark Ages, chaos and oppression would've been all you expected from life.

    I'm not telling you all this because I want you to become complacent with our current crop of problems. I'm telling you all this because I want to give you hope. We threw off the shackles of Imperial Britain, reunited with our violent secessionists, repealed the 18th Amendment, and stood up to FDR. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean they can't smarten up. Disaster is never more than one generation away, but neither is shining success.

    I cannot tell you how irritated I get when conservatives bemoan the fact that our president doesn't make like Reagan and tell us that America's best days are yet to come. It's like they'll only believe it if their leader says it's so. What lack of vision! What childish dependance! What unwillingness to take the initiative and actually lead themselves!

    Don't be like them, roomtemp. You're stronger than that. You can see farther, if you choose. You can help the rest of us right this wayward ship of state, but only if you turn around and face the liberals trying to shove you off the end of the plank by sheer attrition. Don't give up and leap into the cold waves of irrelevancy. Draw your sword and come back to the fight!

    If you think I'm just full of it - that I've deluded myself into believing I can make a difference - then you need to spend some time gazing into the abyss of Socialist Europe, where good men still fight and die in the face of overwhelming odds. Don't believe me? Visit Daniel Hannan's channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/DanHannanMEP and be sure to watch the speech he delivered at this year's CPAC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujuEpGmKMg

    If he can continue to stand, what's your excuse for running?

    P.S. Out of curiosity, where have you been planning to run off to, anyway?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    Eh ...
    March 27, 2012 11:45 am

    ... my post was so lengthy, it didn't show up for a while. So I tried a second time. And now I look silly. Or desperate.

    "Please, please, roomtemp! You must listen to me! See, I even posted my heartfelt plea twice!"

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    March 28, 2012 3:25 pm
    Nah, you never look silly or desperate. I don't know anybody on the net that hasn't had a double-post once in a while.

    Your points are valid as usual. I suppose a difference in our perspectives might be that I see a lot of the events you describe as cumulative. Sure, there are always periods of difficulty, but we're at a point now where things are stacking up fast. Our 'leaders' see the founding documents more as a hindrance to control than guidelines for it or a barrier to it.

    Dan Hannan rocks btw. I've heard him give some speeches on cspan that had me cheering. The thing is, if Paul is pissing in the wind then so is he. (And seemingly less relevant to politics here being an MP and all. But yeah, cool guy. You do realize he's a Ron Paul supporter right? -snicker)

    I hope you understand that Europe's financial problems are already affecting us. We have been tossing lots of money their way for a long time. (When is the last time the government offered you a U.S. taxpayer backed .01% interest multi-billion dollar loan? I'm guessing... never)

    For all intents and purposes, there already is a global banking system and the next objective of the people that control it is to level the playing field among several currencies. (Meaning, all the ones that matter.) I hope you are prepared for the dollar to sink to the level of the peso in buying power.

    Just what do you think the reaction will be when people can't get their Obama money? I see some stark differences in coping ability between our citizens now and the ones in the great depression. I'm not sure I want to be here for that. (On the bright side it might become cost effective manufacturing here again after a long hungry while.)

    I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to fight against an increasingly totalitarian government or a populace of sheep that willingly trade their liberty for perceived security. I do know that voting for the elite's chosen is part of the problem, not the solution. As I don't want to hurt anybody and they have better toys than I do, a military coup seems unlikely to succeed. :-D

    On the 'where would I go'. Preferably to a warm 2nd world country on the way up. ;-) I have a few options, friends that want me to work for them and can integrate me pretty quickly (so they say). I'm not too jazzed about Indonesia but Costa Rica sounds pretty nice. There a couple family members here I have a duty to. So I can't bail for a while yet. Until then I'll keep trying to make life a little better in some small way for those in my immediate vicinity.

    I definitely will miss my trees and mountains. Politics, society, culture, not so much...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    March 28, 2012 11:25 pm

    Yeah, I know Hannan likes Paul. Shoulda expected you to point that out ... ;-p

    (I lik- ... er, respect Paul, too. I think he's out to lunch on foreign policy and I think he'd make an incredibly ineffective president and I don't think he'd have a prayer of beating Obama, but I *respect* him for the way he's attempting - and, largely, succeeding - to effect change within the Republican Party. This time around, he's been working within the established party system instead of tilting at third party windmills, and I think he's been having a not-inconsiderable effect. You may not have noticed, but right now the GOP is more conservative - more libertarian, even - than it has been in decades. The Tea Party movement has pretty much eliminated the possibility that Romney will, if elected, morph into yet another big-spending neocon. People are talking about the Constitution as though it actually matters again. The Fed just got audited, for crying out loud! Paul and other libertarian-minded reformers are making a difference. Just 'cause Paul won't ever get elected president doesn't mean he's "pissing in the wind.")

    Regarding all your other concerns, I see only one way to prevent the doom you predict. That way is to actually stand up, get involved, and fight back. For me, that means, among other things, engaging liberals on forums such as this one. I don't want to denigrate self-interest (it does drive the free market, after all), but if us conservatives aren't willing to endure discomfort in order to stay in the fight and be the change we wish to see, then that change will never come. If we all flee to the four winds, then America's demise is no longer in doubt. People like you and me are all that's left standing between our beloved republic and the looming socialist nightmare. It was one of the fathers of modern conservatism, after all, who is supposed to have declared, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    I will not have it repeated by my grandchildren that, in the hour when America still teetered on the brink of absolute tyranny, I did nothing. For that reason alone, it's worth my time to stay.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bpgreen81 wrote...
    I am so sick and tired
    March 26, 2012 4:49 pm
    I am so tired of the over-dramatic, angry, whiny,and childish attitude coming from our party. I have watched Santorum become progressively angry throughout this campaign; he is now just a younger dark haired Newt. The sad thing is, the "conservative base" eats this stuff up. In the process it makes our entire party look like ignorant fools. Bottom line is you don't have to be a hotheaded jerk to be conservative. I am over the politics of anger already, we need a cool and collected leader....Romney 2012 anybody?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saturday Evening Post wrote...
    Yup,
    March 26, 2012 5:45 pm
    I was hoping Santorum would prove out but adopting the Newt's strategy is over the top. I'd consider myself "conservative base" and evangelical and I'm not liking this anymore than you are.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }