Thread: Romney's Speech to the CFR

Hey everyone! Be sure and vote in our new Alipac survey at:


http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-99803.html

Thanks April, already did.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Originally Posted by sofedup

The comments in bold were NOT Romney's. I wish they were.

I see that Jonathan thought my comments were Mitt's comments. I thought I made that clear at the beginning of the article. I just enlarged it, bolded it and made it red.

Yes, the article was so long that I had initially thought you were highlighting the high points of the speech.

I have to make a confession after blasting you, I also read just the bold and said, no way, this must be fake, so I reread the article and once I saw the call for endless war I said, "ah there is the romney i know!"

In spite of this speech to the CFR, I think Romney is still the best choice for President. I think Romney is simply going along with the Bush "War on Terror" baggage so he will not alienate a large number of the Republican base that supports Bush in this area. The speech seems to be "off the shelf" doctrine and is full of pablum and platitudes that could have been a rewrite of a Condoleezza speech.

This shows Romney is making a calculated discussion not to oppose Bush foreign policy at this time. Remember that such rhetoric often changes dramatically after the primaries are over and the contest becomes the national election.

Voted

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In spite of this speech to the CFR, I think Romney is still the best choice for President. I think Romney is simply going along with the Bush "War on Terror" baggage so he will not alienate a large number of the Republican base that supports Bush in this area. The speech seems to be "off the shelf" doctrine and is full of pablum and platitudes that could have been a rewrite of a Condoleezza speech.

This shows Romney is making a calculated discussion not to oppose Bush foreign policy at this time. Remember that such rhetoric often changes dramatically after the primaries are over and the contest becomes the national election.

So instead of being straightforward with the voters, he is being sneaky and trying to deceive voters. This is something voters are tired of. We are tired of politicians trying to be politically correct. They need to stop trying to please everyone and come out with their true intentions.

Truth be told, Mitt is no different than what we have in office now.

He is bent on a a NAU and expanding globalization. According to the CFR, you cannot expand globalization without giving up your sovereignty.

I am not willing to give one ounce of my countries sovereignty away in the pursuit of globalization.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sov ... ation.html

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In spite of this speech to the CFR, I think Romney is still the best choice for President. I think Romney is simply going along with the Bush "War on Terror" baggage so he will not alienate a large number of the Republican base that supports Bush in this area. The speech seems to be "off the shelf" doctrine and is full of pablum and platitudes that could have been a rewrite of a Condoleezza speech.

This shows Romney is making a calculated discussion not to oppose Bush foreign policy at this time. Remember that such rhetoric often changes dramatically after the primaries are over and the contest becomes the national election.

So instead of being straightforward with the voters, he is being sneaky and trying to deceive voters. This is something voters are tired of. We are tired of politicians trying to be politically correct. They need to stop trying to please everyone and come out with their true intentions.

Truth be told, Mitt is no different than what we have in office now.

He is bent on a a NAU and expanding globalization. According to the CFR, you cannot expand globalization without giving up your sovereignty.

I am not willing to give one ounce of my countries sovereignty away in the pursuit of globalization.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sov ... ation.html

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.

People who are 100% transparent with the under-educated masses do not win elections, and that is also why Ron Paul is not winning in the primaries.

In the real world, total honesty combined with no tact (or tactics) only gets you crucified.

But if you want to vote for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate, go ahead and we'll be dancing with Hillary or Obama for 4 or 8 years.

Sometimes it is not possible to dance with the girl of your dreams right away. You might have to settle for less and then work your way up, In the next election perhaps Ron Paul will gain traction if he jettisons some of his libertarian ideas and funky tax policies that do not provide sufficient revenue.

I didn't say who I support, but I sure am not voting for someone who wants to end our country like Mitt does.

I can assure you I am not one of the uneducated masses you speak of.


I am not willing to give one ounce of my countries sovereignty away in the pursuit of globalization.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sov ... ation.html

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

I didn't say who I support, but I sure am not voting for someone who wants to end our country like Mitt does.

I can assure you I am not one of the uneducated masses you speak of.


I am not willing to give one ounce of my countries sovereignty away in the pursuit of globalization.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sov ... ation.html

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.

I'm been reading all these posts and you seem to have an official position with alipac

Has Romeny been taken off the "do not bash" list here now? because he sure seems to be the target this morning

jp wrote

I can assure you I am not one of the uneducated masses you speak of.

Yes, I realize you are obviously both intelligent and educated as well as uncompromisingly idealistic. Traits to be admired!

The problem lies in the fact that you are vastly outnumbered by millions of the uneducated voters I just mentioned above.

The difference between us is just that I am more pragmatic and more willing to compromise my idealism with tactics. Sometimes an army must yield ground to the enemy and dig in on the hill behind them so they can advance later. Think of Mel Gibson's tactics in The Patriot movie. Think of how he resisted the provocation at the British fort. Above all, remember that he was victorious in the end because he had the power to restrain his idealism and pride until he could unleash it most effectively.