Competing Quotes…

 

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.- GOP candidate for President Mitt Romney

 

The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. -Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

 

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. -President Barack Obama

 

Call me biased but of the three Mitt Romney’s is far and away the most in line with a US President. I chose these three because I felt they caught the spirit of what the Romney campaign and the Obama Administration are about. Additional statements by Administration officials and President Obama himself at best paint a hyper political pansy approach. Most folks would call that being diplomatic. I say it is being overly cautious,over analytical and lacking in leadership.

 

 

19 responses to “Competing Quotes…

  1. Exactly. Who do we want nominating our Supreme Court justices, who will ultimately interpret that Constitution? Who do we want as Commander in Chief, protecting our citizens and ambassadors?

    • And the hits keep coming.Romney correctly identifies the 47% of Americans who would never vote for him and he’s an asshole per the Mother Jones types. Funny seeing as the less true Bibles and gun clinger thing of yore was supposed to be passed over.

  2. Well needless to say I disagree with both your post and your comment to Bridget.

    For brevity alone, Obama’s is the better statement. Furthermore when you insult someone then as a decent person you acknowledge the insult and apologize for it. That is what decent countries do. Islamic countries believe erroneously that all expressions from a country are government sanctioned. They need to be reminded otherwise.

    Romney essentially said “f*ck you. Our great Constitution gives us the right to be offensive a$$holes.” Obama acknowledged both sides of the equation. No excuse for rudeness and absolutely zero tolerance for grievance-based violence.

    As for your comment to Bridget, I expect this to fall on deaf ears (a great frustration for me in this hyper-partisan political season) but there is a key difference between Romney’s 47% comment and Obama’s “bitter clingers”. The former wrote off the votes of the group he insulted. The latter was talking about how to bring these folks into the tent.

    As usual …. exclusive (GOP) vs inclusive (Dem).

    • Anyone who goes on a murderous rampage after being “insulted” is not worth apologising to.

      Sorry, they lost their right to ask for an apology when they starting killing innocent people.

    • Well you are quite simply wrong in what you should expect from a POTUS
      As for exclusive inclusive I simply don’t have the energy at the moment to address all thats wrong with your comment

  3. Alfie, you ought to forget reasoning with Rutherford. You might as well beat your hammer on the anvil of inanity. Rutherford entered Dear Leader territory years back. He’ll never leave.

    The man is an unashamed liar, a partisan hack, unteachable, and a useful idiot for tyranny and treason.

    We’ve tried various avenues over the years, and no matter the evidence, the conclusion is always the same.

    I provide as evidence of Rutherford’s perceptions and the reality of America. You think I’m harsh calling Rutherford a liar? When you carry water for a liar, you too are a liar.

    The former wrote off the votes of the group he insulted. The latter was talking about how to bring these folks into the tent.

    This was supposed to be the post racial President. The man that would unite us. Remember Obama’s magic words? In your lifetimes, when has this nation been more divided? More covetousness? More intolerant of free thought and free speech?

    Democrats don’t want to unite America. They want to conquer it.

    So why are we trying to reason with them? It’s as foolish as reasoning with the Muslim Brotherhood and more dangerous.

  4. Prior to this breaking Romney was in California where he was setting off in the direction of highlighting differences in approaches between himself and Obama. He was doing so in front of the demographic that is said to be overwhelmingly voting Obama in Nov.
    After this video bit breaks (saving Obama from media [snicker]scrutiny over the economy and Libya) the GOP hopeful had this to say:

    “We have a very different approach, the president and I, between a government dominated society and a society driven by free people pursuing their dreams,”

    Thinking this through and knowing there are reported tensions within the Romney camp I had a pseudo “ah-ha” moment
    Is Romney planning,embracing whatever this situation or video or not was he heading this way anyway or some combination???
    My take is he has made a decision regard the Reagan-esque govt. or free enterprise lane and is driving full throttle. I say this with equal parts curiosity and conviction. I think such a plan is dangerous in an American election but I also think it speaks to something higher in regards vision and character.
    For that I can let poolman or rutherford fault my Mitt kool aid intake,doesn’t phase me. I personally just think I’m seeing a good man get tarred as a bad candidate when in reality he’s a good,nah better person.

    • Romney wasn’t my first choice, though I am not sure exactly why as all candidates flawed, but I have actually liked Romney better Alfie than I thought I would. I think he’s a pretty shrewd, pretty moral man and I believe he might be an effective President.

      I did think McCain was a woefully poor candidate in 2008.

      Anybody honest knows Romney far more intelligent, well spoken, far more reasoned, and infinitely more moral than Obama. Obama is cliche and insipid. Like I said, with Obama’s record? This election should not be close.

      This election is more of a commentary on the state of American character than the candidates themselves. The differences couldn’t be polar.

      And pay no heed to that greasy Rutherford’s inane commentary of “why didn’t you pick this or pick that?” He’ll be in here soon enough to read this and fire back. Good. He’s disingenuous as hell, just like his President. No matter who the candidate was, Rutherford would find something to fault, his wife would be a disgrace, the kids derelict, the dog abused etc…the talking points unoriginal and parroted from MSNBC, or Journolist or some other wretched den of wolves and liars.

      But you’ll note there’s no defending the Dear Leader – there’s nothing to speak with that abysmal record because there is no record of success the last four years. None. It’s a disaster.

      And that is why it is so frustrating to me. You can’t cut beef from snakes and you can’t overcome a sense of entitlement and a lifetime of indoctrination with a soundbite and a few graphs. This mass media is so corrupted, it is becoming a very difficult obstacle to overcome. The right is still not on equal footing yet for getting out the message.

      But if this election should turn south, I have some very good suggestions to legally bring this country to its knees – but if and only if millions of Romney supporters can band together to make it stick and make the sacrifice to end the entitlement once and for all. If they can’t understand reason, let them understand hunger and pain.

      Got to be honest with you, Alfie. I too am tired of this crap. Men like Rutherford are rank propagandists for Dear Leader and little else. I’ll abuse “R” for a time, then cut him loose after the election – my work completed.

      He’s as sleazy as those shows he watches like Bill Maher. Didn’t always think that way, though. That started changing for me last year when I listened for a brief time the retching radio program and the religious bigotry became routine.

  5. I totally agree that this election is revealing something more about the collective character of our country. It is a sad thing and I think it is indicative of something that will only get worse in 2016,2020 etc.
    This election really really really is more about a direction than the candidate.I’ve said before I don’t see Romney as the cure all. I see him as a brake and reorientation. People mock it and say something along the lines of “full speed backwards” Well I obviously disagree. I would say though that even backwards is better than warp speed in2 the disastrous

  6. As for Rutherford… I can only say he has voiced concerns over the right sides rhetoric and potential strokes between now and election day. It has to be said he is full throttled and fwiw I hope he doesn’t have a real world medical issue due to it.

    • I hope he doesn’t have a real world medical issue due to it.

      That no longer concerns me. Not to be cold, but there is a bridge that one never crosses, and Rutherford crossed the Rubicon with me a few weeks back.

      I figure his behavior the last year has earned whatever will be.

    • Alfie, I actually appreciate your concern and believe it sincere. Unlike Huck, who had to stop participating in blogs because it was literally damaging his health, I don’t expect such consequences will apply to me. I DO get worked up. But any medical issues I encounter in the coming months will be a combination of political exhaustion (regardless of the November outcome), and continued financial pressures from a self-owned business still struggling. It will be the latter that really does me in, not the former.

      • Rutherford, I do see your points of view. I cannot agree with all your premises but I do give you your due for sticking to your guns regardless of the insults heaped upon you.

        Regardless, Congress has not allowed Obama to accomplish much of anything these past two years. For that reason alone he needs to go. If Romney can jump start Congress into working, then he needs to be the choice. As it stands, two steps backwards may be better than no steps.

        Do you seriously feel that Obama will have more power if he gets re-elected and can move forward?

        • Raji, the possible light at the end of the tunnel that I see is congressmen still trying get reelected in 2014 may find little gain in obstructing a POTUS who is no longer running for reelection. In other words, the Mitch McConnell imperative disappears.

  7. Romney is not a politician, he is a capitalist. Expending time and money into a 47% populace that is not beneficial to him does not compute. All his efforts would go to the 53% populace that could get him elected. The fact that he so stated may be the reason he will not get elected because sad to say most of the voters relate to a politician.

    Romney would do well with China and the Soviet Union. His FP with the Middle East not so much. In a perfect world, we would elect two CEO’s for the office of POTUS, one for domestic affairs and one for foreign affairs.

        • And you insinuate Obama’s FP has been effective with 23 Muslim countries smoking in flames, an ambassador dead with three other Americans, the denial and excuse over a movie now busted and Al Queda responsible? :shock:

          Remember when GITMO was going to be closed?

          Wait until Iran gets fissile material and we’ll really talk about negligence. A million dead people too.

          John Bolton gets it.

Comments are closed.