Judge Napalitano says no difference between Romney & Obama

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Obiwan,
You post all kinds of liberal accusations against people on this forum that I would consider to have conservative views. You claim to be an expert on politics, but several times you have dodged my question of how you define conservative. About it?

Most on this forum have "Libertarian" views, not Conservative.

Examples are legalizing drugs, anti-war, anti-conservatives, 9/11, etc.
Many of these libertarian views are actually Liberal/Progressive views.
For example, you're anti-war, claiming many of the same things liberals claim, you're a liberal.
When your anti-conservative, when you belittle and degrade other conservatives constantly, not just for an issue, but over-all even, You're a liberal.
When you think 9/11 was an inside job, you're a liberal. Even though liberals don't really believe that, the "thinking patterns" involved to create such conspiracy is the same. Same with anti-mormons and liberals. Different subjects, but they think and judge things the same. The use a little truth to lie. Using a little truth to lie is a liberal phenom, it comes from the devil. It really disappoints me when I see Christians, Mormons, Conservatives, etc. embrace some part of the dark side of the force, when we ALL SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE.


I mean, when I saw Alex Jone's behavior toward Michelle Malkin, it just made me sick, not to mention all his other throwing people under the bus. See, Alex actually LIES about Malkin and her book, in order to attack her. To me, that is wrong....

An easy example would be John McCain..... He's Conservative enough to be called a Conservative, but he's MUCH too Liberal in many of his views and actions. Likewise, most here are not full conservatives, they are a "warped" version, quasi-liberal, anarchist, libertarian, etc.

A better example is Ron Paul..... You all love Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a Conservative, he's a Libertarian. Libertarians are too much for Anarchy in their "freedom" views. Conservatives are called "conservative" for a reason.[/quote

Conservative: Disposed to maintaining existing views or instituitions.
The Libertarian Party was founded to maintain the views of the founding fathers and the constitution.It was deemed nesseary to combat the ever increasing liberal leanings of the Republican Party. Any person or party that strays from the views of the founding fathers or the constituion would be considered liberal.MOst of your views are liberal.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Well, at least you admit you have a closed mind and won't accept truth except from your closed paradigm.

Thanks again for yet another label. How typical of you. You know what? I stopped listening to Lucifer in the pre-existence and that worked out ok. I don't need to continue listening to garbage to recognize it as garbage. When the Spirit says it isn't for you then you move on to find truth where it testifies that it exists. Alex Jones, that wonderful Child of God, has his agenda, too. Just like everyone else.

Well here is a second try, go to the download section on this forum and download the 2009 CFR Chart. It contains a list of members of the CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg and shows their positions in the Gov, military, media, corps, etc. ...it is a who's who of America and yet most people have never seen this.....give it a try.

Did that. Duly noted. Still not sold.

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

I just don't get the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" labels. The Republican rhetoric **right now** is centered on who is most conservative and it is just stupid. A case can be made for everyone one of them and why NONE of them are conservative.

Me, I only get it because I really see and know the ideology's, that there is a "power" grab between the forces of good and the forces of darkness. The War in Heaven not only continues in the world itself, it also exists in politics.

Well, they are all in fact conservatives, but everyone has their claims of who's not enough, and trying to one up each other.
Me, I just find it disappointing. I guess even conservatives are human too.

Reagan, for all the reverence given to him (and yes, he was a good man), wasn't as conservative as it all appears, as some have pointed out. I'll just point to immigration policy during the Reagan administration as just one example.

Oh, he was.... People just misrepresent otherwise. Take the Immigration issue also. His amnesty was intended to once and for all finally fix the problem. They had implemented changes to the laws. Problem was, he didn't realize that the laws wouldn't actually be enforced.

You see, on all sides, everyone is trying to pidgeon-hole all the candidates into neat little characterizations or broad absurdities (NWO) and I'm not buying it.

Ya, but there IS a truth out there. We need to be careful what we embrace. Truth can be known.

When I look at Romney I don't see someone connected to the political machine. He has always been an outsider -- an odd duck -- who is forced now, ironically enough, to be accepted on a more mainstream basis out of fear for being labeled intolerant (on the religion issue) -- and he's managed to achieve a dominant position. And nobody but nobody in the **political world** is happy about it.

Yep.

I know lots of, um, sheeple, who are actually quite high on the guy for their simple reasons that may not, in fact, be all that different than the so-called "hope-and-change" vote that was Obama in 2008. I don't believe that right now, given the economy, that anyone really gives a rat's backside about liberal, or conservative or, yes, who's more constitutional. I'm not saying that's RIGHT. I'm saying that's real. It's the economy, stupid. We've been down this road before and people are going to vote with the person who they think will take them to that promised land, for better or for worse.

True, there are those on all sides that get excited about their particular candidate. Sure, those in the middle who aren't really on or know one side or the other, that is something they will care about most, that is the economy. Yep, that's true. 40% is on one side and 40% is on the other, it's the 20% in the middle that sways an election, and they go either way depending on the "current feelings" of things. ha ahaaaa

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Actually, I've seen the video before moonwhim. I watched the first little bit and recognized it from a while back.

I'm sorry. I can't take Alex Jones seriously. I have my suspicions about things relative to the NWO. But I reject Alex Jones and won't waste my time with his stuff.

If that makes me used by the NWO so be it.

Well, at least you admit you have a closed mind and won't accept truth except from your closed paradigm.

What part of "he's watched the video" and is familiar with Alex Jones views etc. tell you he has a "closed mind"???

See, what you people don't understand is that it's YOU with the closed minds..... You follow Alex Jones propaganda and you see and seek nothing else. You don't study the other side which clearly debunks Alex Jones claims. You think "more info" is the same thing as more truth, it's not. Anti-mormons claims the same thing. That we "hide" our history and doctrines, yet everything they know about us comes from us, but what they do is cherry pick, and then create their strawmen.

Alex Jones does the same. He "cherry picks" facts, and then creates his conspiracy's, his strawmen, which are some facts used to create a big lie. 9/11 claims is the easiest one to debunk. All one has to do is look at the Wikipedia article on Building 7 and see the actual facts, that 9/11 claims are nothing but vast bunk.

How do you know I haven't studied "the other side", that is not fair to accuse me of something you know nothing about, you are sounding like Obiwan now, I was hoping you weren't to insolent. Well if the video is cherry-picked I would sure like to know where and how. I've studied the NWO for some 40 years now and have seen it grow and flourish and they now almost have their police state in place in America and 9/11 was the impetus for it all......and now the definition of the terrorist enemy is turning away from the Muslim terrorist to the conservatives, gun owners, ie, the average american......voila, the purpose of 9/11!

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Obiwan, would going against the scriptures be liberal or conservative?

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

How do you know I haven't studied "the other side", that is not fair to accuse me of something you know nothing about, you are sounding like Obiwan now, I was hoping you weren't to insolent.

You talking to me?

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

How do you know I haven't studied "the other side", that is not fair to accuse me of something you know nothing about, you are sounding like Obiwan now, I was hoping you weren't to insolent.

You talking to me?

yup

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

How do you know I haven't studied "the other side", that is not fair to accuse me of something you know nothing about, you are sounding like Obiwan now, I was hoping you weren't to insolent.

You talking to me?

Genuine question, or did you forget which user you were on?

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

Conservative: Disposed to maintaining existing views or instituitions.
The Libertarian Party was founded to maintain the views of the founding fathers and the constitution.It was deemed nesseary to combat the ever increasing liberal leanings of the Republican Party. Any person or party that strays from the views of the founding fathers or the constituion would be considered liberal.MOst of your views are liberal.

You are confused. Yes, Conservatives are disposed to maintaining existing views and institutions, but in fact it's in reference to the FOUNDING views and institutions, not modernity or otherwise. Conservatives are "traditionalists", which is Founding Principles.

While it is true that the Libertarian Party was founded for that "perception" with maybe a little truth, it's not accurate.
Because NONE of my views are liberal.....
I don't believe drugs should be legal, that's a LIBERAL position, AND a Libertarian position.
I'm not anti-war, that's a LIBERAL position, and a Libertarian position.

Just look at the views of Ralf Nader all the times he's ran for president.
These views aren't Conservative nor Mormon.....

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I'm not anti-war, that's a LIBERAL position, and a Libertarian position.

Just look at the views of Ralf Nader all the times he's ran for president.
These views aren't Conservative nor Mormon.....

So you believe that Mormons are pro-war?

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

How do you know I haven't studied "the other side", that is not fair to accuse me of something you know nothing about, you are sounding like Obiwan now, I was hoping you weren't to insolent.

You talking to me?

yup

I didn't post what you quoted in your last post. That wasn't me.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Genuine question, or did you forget which user you were on?

Stupid NWO newbie handbook!!!

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

Obiwan, would going against the scriptures be liberal or conservative?

Liberal.....

But the question is if you are actually interpreting the scriptures correctly, and more so the actual facts of the current events/wars.
For example, liberal mormon claims (and yours, because you're liberal in this) that the BOM teaches against pre-emptive war is both a perversion of the scriptures (let alone ALL the scriptures) and is a perversion of the current issues themselves in order to make such a claim.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Gentlemen -- please!!! Can we get back on topic, quoting myself here...

Re: Judge Napalitano says no difference between Romney & Oba

Postby ebenezerarise » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:20 pm

InfoWarrior82 wrote:How about you BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS! Looks like Mr. Napalitano AND COUNTLESS OTHERS have done a insanely convincing job comparing the two. You just close your eyes when it's something you don't want to see.

FYI

The "R" and "D" next to their names don't count.

Romney being white and Obama being black doesn't count.


WOW. Why do Ron Paul supporters have to be so caustic? Oh, and isn't Napalitano FoxNews? And yet, Obiwan is accused of watching too much FoxNews??? I don't get you guys.

Now, to Napalitono's points.

1. He says every Republican candidate except Ron Paul supports NDAA. News to me. Can anyone supply quotes, links of this? First I've heard of Romney supporting NDAA and i've been looking for it.

2. He claims Santorum and Romney believe the same things -- almost completely opposite of every other pundit out there.

3. THEN he says Obama and Romney are the same. Absurd. How so?
-- Can the government mandate healthcare. According to Napalitano, both Romney and Obama agree. Not true though. Romney has repeatedly said it is a state issue.
-- Should income taxes stay the same on those who pay the most? Yes on both according to Napalitano. Again, not true...on BOTH counts.
-- Can a president start a war without a declaration from Congress? Napalitano say yes from both. SHOW ME.
-- Can the president kill anyone he wants? Incredibly, Napalitano says yes from both. Again, SHOW ME.
-- Both like big government. Hello, Judge? Did you take a look at Massachusetts and the cuts Romney made there?

This is nothing less than a Ron Paul commercial -- full of disinformation, distortions and opinion. It is REAL SHORT on Ron Paul facts.

Judge Napalitano is a good American. But he should stick to matters of the court. His politics are twisted.

Is anyone going to speak to this or are we just going to run with the idea that all Ron Paul followers will blindly accept the gospel here according to Judge Napalitano?

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

I'm not anti-war, that's a LIBERAL position, and a Libertarian position.

Just look at the views of Ralf Nader all the times he's ran for president.
These views aren't Conservative nor Mormon.....

So you believe that Mormons are pro-war?

I believe that Mormons and the Church teaches to stand against evil in the world. If the time for war comes, then we are pro-war.
The righteous fighting against the wicked is NEVER wrong.... We can argue about liberals screwing things up, length of the war, the reasons, etc. etc...... but the BOTTOM LINE, is these wars have been combating the wicked of the earth, organized evil that wishes nothing more than to destroy everything we stand for, and to bring about Armageddon.

Anyone that can't understand the "morality" of these wars, is not a person that should be president, and is not a faithful mormon being true to the faith once delivered.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I didn't post what you quoted in your last post. That wasn't me.

You are right EB, it was Obiwan, sorry.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Obiwan, would going against the scriptures be liberal or conservative?

Liberal.....

But the question is if you are actually interpreting the scriptures correctly, and more so the actual facts of the current events/wars.
For example, liberal mormon claims (and yours, because you're liberal in this) that the BOM teaches against pre-emptive war is both a perversion of the scriptures (let alone ALL the scriptures) and is a perversion of the current issues themselves in order to make such a claim.

Have you read D&C 98? It clearly forbids premtive war.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Gentlemen -- please!!! Can we get back on topic, quoting myself here...

-- Can the government mandate healthcare. According to Napalitano, both Romney and Obama agree. Not true though. Romney has repeatedly said it is a state issue.

As if forcing someone to pay health insurance is better at the state level? Force is force, that is not a conservative position, and that is big reason I cannot support Romney.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

I believe that Mormons and the Church teaches to stand against evil in the world. If the time for war comes, then we are pro-war.

I don't believe this.

When WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc all came about I never heard once of the Church being for it. Ever. President Hinckley certainly made his feelings known about war.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

As if forcing someone to pay health insurance is better at the state level? Force is force, that is not a conservative position, and that is big reason I cannot support Romney.

I can accept that. I just haven't found yet where it was mandated. I'm sure it is out there.

The question is this: would it be acceptable if Romney said he was wrong and screwed up?

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I believe that Mormons and the Church teaches to stand against evil in the world. If the time for war comes, then we are pro-war.

I don't believe this.

When WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc all came about I never heard once of the Church being for it. Ever. President Hinckley certainly made his feelings known about war.

+1

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

I believe that Mormons and the Church teaches to stand against evil in the world. If the time for war comes, then we are pro-war.

I don't believe this.

When WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc all came about I never heard once of the Church being for it. Ever. President Hinckley certainly made his feelings known about war.

+1

+2

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], aka Romneycare,[3] enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[4] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report) that had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.

Don't know if this changes anything. But the comparisons to Romneycare and Obamacare seem to indicate significant differences. Plus, that doesn't change the Romney position that what is done on a state level should be done on a national level.

[Dr. Mindbendercaptain of 50]

Wow. Can't believe I just spent the last 20 minutes reading several people talk (or type) completely past each other.

Obiwan, for all your knowledge, I believe you have forgotten one of your most important lessons that you gave to Luke after Yoda died. "You are going to find that many of the truths we cling to rely greatly on our own point of view." All would do well to remember that bit of sage advice.

Frankly, one simply cannot have a conversation like this without defining the terms and listing the reasons why one believes what they do.

From one **party's 'certain point of view' they can compare Romney's views with Obama's views and conclude that they are substantially similar, or in this case 'are the same.' **(by party I mean person or side of the issue, not a political one. Term defined.)

From another party's 'certain point of view' they can compare Romney's views with Obama's views and conclude they are worlds apart.

Without defining what the terms mean (ie what does 'Romney is the same as Obama' really mean to this person?), one cannot have a meaningful discourse. Instead, we have this exchange where most have resorted to name calling rather than providing real substance to the issues.

One last thought and then I will shut up and disappear again to the nether regions of the internet. The grand secret is that even if one has all the reasons, excuses, smoking guns of evidence saying this or that, the other person may not still see eye to eye. Why? One may call it 'a certain point of view', another may call it having different life experiences, and still others call it agency.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

With regard to Romneycare and Obamacare... it's like comparing and contrasting fascism(national socialism) and communism(global socialism). Mandates are still mandates. Tyranny is still tyranny.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

With regard to Romneycare and Obamacare... it's like comparing and contrasting fascism(national socialism) and communism(global socialism). Mandates are still mandates. Tyranny is still tyranny.

Is it tyranny if it is the will of the people?

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

From another party's 'certain point of view' they can compare Romney's views with Obama's views and conclude they are worlds apart.

My only problem with this statement is that the original topic of this thread was a member of the media (Napalitano) presenting his views as fact. He's free to vote for who he wants to vote for. But as media, he has to present things impartially and fair. He didn't do that. In fact, he lied.

That's wrong.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

With regard to Romneycare and Obamacare... it's like comparing and contrasting fascism(national socialism) and communism(global socialism). Mandates are still mandates. Tyranny is still tyranny.

Is it tyranny if it is the will of the people?

Think big picture here......does mandating someone purchase something violate free will? Yes.
If said person does not participate in healthcare, how does that violate the free will of someone else?
Is there be anything mandated under the Law of Consecration? No, and you are free to leave at anytime...its voluntary.
The "will of the people" is a dangerous slippery slope as it can quickly become "mob rule".
I look at it this way....does anyone have the authority to to force another to sign up for healthcare? I submit the answer is no; so how are we able to give that authority to government in the first place?

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

With regard to Romneycare and Obamacare... it's like comparing and contrasting fascism(national socialism) and communism(global socialism). Mandates are still mandates. Tyranny is still tyranny.

Is it tyranny if it is the will of the people?

This slips into the dangerous water of tyranny of the majority. One of the major things the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution was not only limit government to following the will of the people, but preventing the majority from taking away the freedoms of the minority (as often happens in a true democracy).

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

With regard to Romneycare and Obamacare... it's like comparing and contrasting fascism(national socialism) and communism(global socialism). Mandates are still mandates. Tyranny is still tyranny.

Is it tyranny if it is the will of the people?

Think big picture here......does mandating someone purchase something violate free will? Yes.
If said person does not participate in healthcare, how does that violate the free will of someone else?
Is there be anything mandated under the Law of Consecration? No, and you are free to leave at anytime...its voluntary.
The "will of the people" is a dangerous slippery slope as it can quickly become "mob rule".
I look at it this way....does anyone have the authority to to force another to sign up for healthcare? I submit the answer is no; so how are we able to give that authority to government in the first place?

I hear you. But we have other things that are mandated. Social security is mandated. Is that not tyranny?