Has anyone abandoned Libertarianism or Paleo-Conservativism?

[Liberty_Agent]

Just curious and wanting to get a few opinions here. Are there any ex-RP supporters? Or people who use to Libertarian but completely turned against the ideology in favor of something else? I'm curious to hear your stories.

[AGStacker]

Nope. Went from a registered Republican who was a county delegate in my state for 2012. After the shenanigans at the RNC I switched my voter registration to Libertarian.

[Jason]

Just curious and wanting to get a few opinions here. Are there any ex-RP supporters? Or people who use to Libertarian but completely turned against the ideology in favor of something else? I'm curious to hear your stories.

Been there, done that, then wised up to the fact that its just another indoctrination spin in favor of the current ruling party (big bad private bankers)...

Thank you Semp!!!

[SouthernMormon]

I have moved from GOP --> Libertarian --> "Radical Right", more or less. Until I was in HS, I thought Paul was kooky more or less, and bought many of the neo-con lies. However, I notice that too many libertarians are soft libertarians, who just do not want to be accused of being harsh, mean, intolerant - and will support drug legalization but not repeal of the "Civil Rights" legislation. DiLorenzo and Woods are better in this regard. I like the paleo-conservative ideas, but I think, quite frankly, that they often do not go far enough, if anything! Asking if you are familiar with any of the following paleo-conservative authors? Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Thomas Fleming, Peter Brimelow, Clyde Wilson. I tend to agree with the paleo-conservatives more then the libertarians, esp. as regards the libertarians being too willing, in my view, to form alliances with left-wingers, militant atheists, and libertines.

[Craig]

I was raised in a Union household that was firmly Democrat, FDR and JFK were viewed as deities. After a stint in the military I became a Republican for many years, just prior to 2000 I started reading the works of the founding fathers which was transformational. Today I would consider myself politically independent though frequently faced with voting for the lesser of two evils. My personal beliefs closely mimic Paleoconservatism and Agrarianism.

[InfoWarrior82]

Just curious and wanting to get a few opinions here. Are there any ex-RP supporters? Or people who use to Libertarian but completely turned against the ideology in favor of something else? I'm curious to hear your stories.

Been there, done that, then wised up to the fact that its just another indoctrination spin in favor of the current ruling party (big bad private bankers)...

Thank you Semp!!!

...and then went right back to statist.

[Seek the Truth]

Deck chairs on the Titanic.

[SouthernMormon]

Deck Chairs on the Titanic - I agree with that. Before I gained a testimony I was in despair over our situation, and saw no hope.

[Seek the Truth]

Congratulations on the testimony. Guard it jealously.

[samizdat]

I consider myself a conservative leaning libertarian. At one time I was a huge cheerleader for Bush, and for Romney, but seeing the damage that Bush did (and exacerbated by Obama) I have become more libertarian. Seeing Romney's corruption after the election in 2008 and my awakening to the terrible situation surrounding us, my politics changed to where it is today.

[Thinker]

In the past, I've voted Republican, and related with some liberatarianism, until I realized they were supporting some things that were illogical and harmful. Last voting, was primarily consitutionally-based, but not entirely.

I consider myself independent...
I believe in conservative principles of finance (as most of us run our own lives), as well as moral values that result in psychological and physical health (responsible sex instead of killing via abortion, supporting marriage between a man and a woman).
I also believe in limited government, including military action - & am appalled at the many wars the US has initiated.

I believe that both major parties are corrupt and have contributed in our ridiculous national debt, and in taking over others country's resources in unfair international trade, as well as other corrupt endeavors (ie FDA and the push on meds...& "Super Pacs" that dictate election results).

[Craig]

I believe that both major parties are corrupt and have contributed in our ridiculous national debt, and in taking over others country's resources in unfair international trade, as well as other corrupt endeavors (ie FDA and the push on meds...& "Super Pacs" that dictate election results).

There's few differences between the two major parties except Democrats believe they're better stewards of our money and Republicans believe individuals are the best stewards of the wages they earn. Regardless, both parties will eventually bankrupt the nation and middle-class families through taxation the Democrats will just do it at a faster pace.

[Seek the Truth]

The "few differences between parties" is a lie that makes Gadiantons beam and grin like few others. If there was no difference between the parties the MSM wouldn't have any interest in the outcome, and there was never an election the MSM had an interest in like unto the last one. If there was no difference between the parties they would have treated Romney and Obama the same. They didn't. It was the most lopsided coverage since Clinton/Dole, where Obama was deified and Romney and the GOP openly sneered at.

[Rensai]

The "few differences between parties" is a lie that makes Gadiantons beam and grin like few others. If there was no difference between the parties the MSM wouldn't have any interest in the outcome, and there was never an election the MSM had an interest in like unto the last one. If there was no difference between the parties they would have treated Romney and Obama the same. They didn't. It was the most lopsided coverage since Clinton/Dole, where Obama was deified and Romney and the GOP openly sneered at.

That makes no sense at all. The MSM is owned by the gads. They are ordered to keep up the appearance of differences between the parties while promoting the candidate they actually want, which was Obama as you noticed. Go study Bush 2, what he actually did, not what he said, and do the same with Obama. Then compare the two. There isn't a dimes difference between their major policies and actions.

How is their fiscal policy?
Both set a record outspending all previous presidents combined

How about the wars?
both have started wars in the middle east and continued the exact same foreign policy.

How about their administrators?
both have cabinet positions with the same types of people, CFR, etc.

I could go on and on. Democrat or republican, there is very little difference in most cases. As long as the American people remain too lazy to get past the lies and really study politics and history they will have no problem keeping up this charade.

[Seek the Truth]

As I said, if there was no difference between the parties then they wouldn't care who won. They cared very deeply who won.

The fact that they continued a lot of Bush's policies is more to do with they were lying back when they were protesting; they were trying to capitalize on the rough going. When they were protesting Bush's rough going it was to capitalize on it. They didn't actually care about it one whit. It was just a distraction so they could achieve their other statist/Sanger policies. Which they have done.

The Democrats have been the war monger/civil rights criminals since Wilson/FDR Palmer raid/internemnt, they never give one rip about that stuff in reality and only give lip service to it when it works as a populist message of the moment.

[Fiannan]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/hi ... 11195.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems someone abandoned the ideals of libertarianism long ago.

[Jason]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/hi ... 11195.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems someone abandoned the ideals of libertarianism long ago.

Actually he's a great figurehead for the ideals of libertarianism - every man a law unto himself

[Jason]

Just curious and wanting to get a few opinions here. Are there any ex-RP supporters? Or people who use to Libertarian but completely turned against the ideology in favor of something else? I'm curious to hear your stories.

Been there, done that, then wised up to the fact that its just another indoctrination spin in favor of the current ruling party (big bad private bankers)...

Thank you Semp!!!

...and then went right back to statist.

It's a lot easier to attack the messenger rather than the message...isn't it?

[Vision]

I have moved to a Christian Anarchist (c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government) political stance, or I finally put the definition with what I have felt for years.

Reading Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" really helped me on my way.

[Thinker]

Vision,
That book sounds really interesting - I might just have to check it out.

However, I can't help but wonder if you are being serious in your political stance.
How practical is it to expect people to act in ways that allow others to enjoy complete freedom?
That's why we have government - because "not all men (& women) are angels."
I apologize if I simply missed sarcasm.

[Benjamin_LK]

As I said, if there was no difference between the parties then they wouldn't care who won. They cared very deeply who won.

The fact that they continued a lot of Bush's policies is more to do with they were lying back when they were protesting; they were trying to capitalize on the rough going. When they were protesting Bush's rough going it was to capitalize on it. They didn't actually care about it one whit. It was just a distraction so they could achieve their other statist/Sanger policies. Which they have done.

The Democrats have been the war monger/civil rights criminals since Wilson/FDR Palmer raid/internemnt, they never give one rip about that stuff in reality and only give lip service to it when it works as a populist message of the moment.

First, I would consider what the Democrats have done to be hypocrisy in perhaps the most brutal form. They knew that the electorate, as hyper-partisan as a lot of them were, would simply buy that national debt and national deficit from the Democrats is okay, even if they run double what the other side approved by majority in Congress. It's okay for the Democrats to throw out free stuff and rack up debt and deficits to even higher levels, and show off a wonderful 2% sequestration, because, after all, they are always good people, no matter what they do. I will admit, I was a registered Democrat until rece

The reality, and where I see plenty of hesitation, to lay some responsibility here is the electorate. If they had any decent sense, or willingness to actually apply some logic, or actual altruistic thinking, then it would be logical to make the steps neccessary for people to reduce a need at the individual, local, and even national level to bring down the deficit and debt. But, as usual, everyone figures, cut the budget, so long as it doesn't cut whatever money I receive from the government.

I think the biggest problem in today's world is the amount of money someone in the political class makes. Well, if someone makes millions, even if they don't sit around being re-elected, plus get all the insurance they ever need, they don't have to worry about the overwhelming majority of the issues. If you were paid like a poor school teacher, well, that might invite a different crowd of people into said political positions, but again, once the money cat is out of the bag for an incentive to be a politician, you can't really ever take it away minus the latter-day calamities coming to pass, and even then, the materialism issue will only be on vacation for a lot of the millenium, at which near the end, there will be simply another group of people who outright and openly, rebel against God himself.

[Seek the Truth]

It used to be that the US was a center-right country (40% identifying as conservative, 20% as liberal) with a left drifting media culture. So each side had it's advantage, we had the populace but they controlled the message outlets. Both sides did their best to capitalize on their advantages but unavoidably would make concessions toward the middle depending on conditions because neither side had a lock on the electorate. It's called "dealing with reality if you live in a country that has elections". The petulant and childish of course had real issues with this from both sides while adults had to patiently deal with the children to get them to act sensibly. Some times we succeeded, sometimes we failed (the adults that is). Sometimes one side gets into the head of the other, as the left got into the heads of the right in this last election (no difference between Romney and Obama I believe they were told and they believed it. The left and PTB really grinned that people believed that).

The problem was that this last election was one of consequence, one party was going to survive while the other was going to go extinct. The right went gutless and now the right is the permanent minority faction. The right handed victory to the left and it will be permanent. The left didn't necessarily win it rather the right gave it away freely, and put themselves in the shackled of state slavery.

It's useful to study the politics of collapse, USSR style. Collapse happens when an organization demonstrably can no longer fulfill it's stated purpose. When the USSR understood internally they could not counter SDI it was their poison pill. Why sacrifice to a project that can no longer succeed.

This is the issue both parties faced last election. In 2008 you had a Democrat candidate who would be unelectable in any other year running in a year when a Democrat couldn't lose. Like the immovable force/unstoppable force dilemma, it can only be resolved in an experiment. So in 2008 we learned that unelectable people can win in a year where their party can't lose. Worth knowing as trivia.

However last year was interesting. We had an incumbent party whose candidate was considered their greatest of all time. If your greatest of all time can't win a 2nd term in a non-crisis election what kind of candidate ever could? For the GOP, we had a situation where we running against the worst President of all time in a time of complete policy failure. If you can't win in those conditions, what conditions can you win in?

We learned that it was the GOP who wouldn't support their candidate, and now the reality is that the American right will never hold the reigns of power again, and we slough off into Ayn Rand described state slavery. And when I look around for who is to blame it will be my fellow travelers on the right.

Thanks guys.

[InfoWarrior82]

It's a lot easier to attack the messenger rather than the message...isn't it?

It becomes easier every time you make a post.

[InfoWarrior82]

http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt- ... ack-obama/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


100 Ways Mitt Romney Is Just Like Barack Obama




The New York Times recently made a less than half-hearted attempt to summarize the similarities between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican Party nominee, Mitt Romney. As New York Magazine reports, the Times wasn’t able to do much better than: They both like Star Trek, Modern Family, and Chicken. Here at IVN, I thought we could find just a few more similarities of just a little more substance.

The following list isn’t just a bunch of opinions, but documented facts that together draw a compelling picture: Far from being polar opposites, the two “choices” offered as presidential candidates by this country’s two main parties are nearly indistinguishable on the substantive public policy challenges Americans face. Using the New York Times piece as a starting point, here are 100 ways Mitt Romney is just like Barack Obama:

1. Star Trek

2. Modern Family

3. Chicken

4. The signature legislative accomplishment of the man that Republicans have chosen to repeal and replace “ObamaCare” was “RomneyCare,” which was the blueprint and model for The Affordable Care Act.

5. The most controversial aspect of “ObamaCare” for its critics, was the individual mandate. Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, believes individual mandates can be a good ingredient of public policy.

6. Mitt Romney reminds critics that he believed “RomneyCare” was good for the state of Massachussetts, but shouldn’t be implemented nationwide, and that’s how he’s substantively different from Barack Obama. In 2007, however, Romney said: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation,” suggesting that, like Obama, he is not opposed to federal mandates either– just controversial ones that his partisan opponents pass.

(Items 7 – 9) As Jon Stewart points out on The Daily Show, Mitt Romney’s proposed legislative replacement for “ObamaCare” would keep everything in it other than the individual mandate, according to Mitt Romney’s own words:

7. Like Obama and the Democrats provided for in the Affordable Care Act, Romney’s legislative alternative would make sure people who want to keep their current insurance can do so.

8. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney wants to expand federal spending on Medicaid to help each state cover residents who cannot afford health insurance.

9. Also like Obama, Romney’s “alternative” would make sure people with preexisting conditions will be covered.

10. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama flip flopped on whether “ObamaCare” is or is not a tax when it was politically suitable.

11. The same Wall Street recipients of TARP bailout money that were top Obama donors in 2008 are top Romney donors in 2012.

12. The Obama Administration has failed to prosecute a single Wall Street executive for malfeasance related to the 2007 – 2008 financial crash. Wall Street’s aforementioned donation patterns make for a compelling conclusion: A Romney Administration would be no different.

13. Setting aside the justice system, legislative fixes for perverse incentives on Wall Street have likewise been underwhelming. Dodd-Frank has been impotent to prevent risky trading and stress tests for federally insured banks only anticipate another housing crash, not a catastrophic hit to America’s very monetary system itself. Instead of a substantive alternative to Obama and the Democrats, Romney’s solution seems to be to do even less: he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.

14. Like Obama, Romney supports taxpayer bailouts of struggling corporations– handouts that go from hardworking Americans to wealthy companies with irresponsible management.

15. The most controversial bailout for Republicans and one of the motivators behind the Tea Party protest movement that began in 2009 was the TARP bailout of big Wall Street financials. Like Obama– who voted for it as a US Senator and continues to support and defend it as President, Mitt Romney supported and continues to support TARP.

16. Not only does Mitt Romney approve of Barack Obama’s federal management of auto industry bankruptcies,he takes credit for it.

17. Republicans criticize Obama for his role in getting Solyndra’s hands dirty with federal money, but at his own big financial company, Bain and Co., Mitt Romney secured millions in a federal bailout of his corporation’s own struggling finances.

18. Though he’s flip-flopped on this issue along with so many others, Mitt Romney has also supported the federal stimulus package passed by the Democrats and signed by Barack Obama, writing that the “‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”

19. Another thing that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have in common is that the numbers strongly suggest they were both wrong about the 2009 economic stimulus package.

20. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama oppose a full, yearly, public, top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve’s finances and activities, citing the need for “Fed independence” from Congress.

21. On monetary policy, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do not see any urgent need to change the status quo and any reform of the Federal Reserve system is not a public policy priority for either candidate.

22. Like Barack Obama, who reappointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Mitt Romney has approved of Ben Bernanke’s handling of the financial crisis and monetary policy in America.

23. Mitt Romney approves of Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner’s record on economic policy as well.

24. Like Barack Obama, economic stimulus via federal spending on infrastructure development is a policy priority for Mitt Romney.

25. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama favor the extension of Bush’s deficit-funded tax cuts for the middle class.

26. Though they are currently sparring over whether or not to extend the tax cuts for high income earners (ibid.), Mitt Romney supports making these tax cuts permanent for them as well (ibid.), and as president, Barack Obama has already extended these tax cuts for high income earners once. Actions matter more than rhetoric. Are the two really so different?

27. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama supported the payroll tax cut extensions.

28. Neither Mitt Romney, nor Barack Obama have charted a course away from the bipartisan consensus that deficit-funded tax cuts stimulate economic growth, so that other than putting up a big showy fight over the details of tax policy, their substantive philosophies of fiscal policy are essentially the same.

29. Like Obama, Mitt Romney is open to a Value Added Tax as a potential fiscal policy solution.

30. In discussions of tax policy, Mitt Romney’s working definition of “wealthy” or “high income” seems to be $200,000 a year (ibid.), the same as that commonly used by Barack Obama.

31. Like Obama, Romney supports raising taxes on businesses, and did so as governor of Massachusetts, despite speciously claiming otherwise by calling his tax hikes on businesses in the commonwealth “closing tax loopholes.”

32. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama‘s federal budget plans would add trillions of dollars to the already unsustainable national debt over the next ten years.

33. Neither Mitt Romney, nor Barack Obama have offered a plan of detailed, substantive spending cuts to the out-of-control federal budget that pass the straight face test.

34. On Social Security, Mitt Romney’s plan is to manage, tinker, and keep “kicking the can down the road.” Barack Obama’s plan is to manager, not tinker… and keep kicking the can down the road.

35. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have taken strong positions against earmarking in the US Congress.

36. Neither Barack Obama, nor Mitt Romney‘s actions are consistent with their rhetoric on earmarks.

37. Spending categorized as defense-related has only gone up during President Obama’s first term from $616 billion under Bush in 2008 to $768 billion in 2011, and Obama still wants even more. So does Romney.

38. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have international backgrounds and parents with international backgrounds…

39. But both are foreign policy amateurs with backgrounds in domestic policy, finance, law, and community organizing rather than foreign policy…

40. Yet their team of foreign policy experts, from Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to Mitt Romney’s team of Bush-era neoconservative foreign policy advisers, indicates their equal commitment to Washington’s unpopular and incoherent foreign policy status quo.

41. And for the first time since 1944, neither of the two major parties’ candidates, Barack Obama, nor Mitt Romney, have military experience.

42. Despite running on a platform of change, Obama’s first term as president has demonstrated his commitment to the Bush era strategies of nation building and counter-insurgency. Mitt Romney doesn’t think Obama’s commitment to nation building is strong enough.

43. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama support the Bush era doctrine of preemptive war.

44. Mitt Romney agrees with President Obama that the president can act unilaterally to take the country to war without Congress.

45. Though Obama paints Romney as an American unilateralist willing to take military action without the blessing and cooperation of the international community, Romney and Obama actually both agree with the Bush era foreign policy of unilateral US military action, and Obama took unilateral military action in the Osama bin Laden raid.

46. Though he has, unsurprisingly, held a different position before, Romney says he would have ordered the bin Laden raid like Obama did.

47. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama believe the US military can be used for humanitarian intervention overseas without an imminent threat to American national security.

48. Mitt Romney approves the NATO-led ousting of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya supported by the Obama Administration.

49. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both agree that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a national security priority for the United States.

50. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would unilaterally take the US to war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

51. Barack Obama has been a consistent supporter and escalator, as both Senator and President, of George W. Bush’s war and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. Mitt Romney thinks he isn’t supportive enough.

52. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are actively trying to outdo each other on which candidate supports economic sanctions against Iran the most.

53. Barack Obama has involved the US in Syria’s foreign civil war. Mitt Romney wants to get even more involved.

54. Mitt Romney supports continuing the Bush and Obama administration policy of cooperation with Pakistan despite its hostile activities toward US operations in Afghanistan and the fact that it appeared to have been harboring Osama bin Laden.

55. Mitt Romney supports the Obama Administration’s policy of unmanned aerial warfare via predator drone in Pakistan.

56. Tim Pawlenty– on Romney’s short list for a VP– has suggested that Mitt Romney would expand Barack Obama’s already unprecedented use of drone warfare.

57. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s massive surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

58. Though he tries to distinguish his position on Afghanistan from that of Obama’s, The New York Times reports that “despite the tough critique, Mr. Romney has loosely embraced the main thrust of White House policy for troop levels after the election: a timetable for pulling out nearly all troops by the end of 2014.”

59. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama consider Israel America’s best long-term strategic ally in the Middle East and are committed to using US military power to go to war alongside Israel against its regional enemies.

60. Barack Obama has failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised on the campaign trail and as president; Mitt Romney said in one presidential debate: “My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.”

61. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney support indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial as a valid and legal tool in the national security state’s war on terrorism.

62. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney support the controversial practice of extraordinary rendition.

63. Like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both speak in the rhetoric of American exceptionalism and divine providence concerning foreign policy.

64. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama base public policy positions and actions on dimensions of their religious faith.

65. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama support and want to continue Bush-era faith-based initiatives.

66. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama support the warrantless wiretapping of the Bush-era USA Patriot Act, which Romney has praised and Obama has acted to renew multiple times as both Senator and President.

67. Mitt Romney says that like Barack Obama did, he would sign the controversial NDAA, including its provisions for the arrest and indefinite detainment of US citizens on US soil.

68. Like Obama, Romney believes in the legitimate power of the president to execute American citizens by “targeted killing” done in secret without charges or trial.

69. Mitt Romney emphatically supported Barack Obama’s decision in 2011 to use “targeted killing” to execute US citizen Anwar al Awlaki by drone strike without charges or trial.

70. On the Bush and Obama-era TSA, Mitt Romney’s position is tinker a little, but maintain the status quo.

71. On undocumented immigration, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama‘s position may differ in some details, but can both essentially be summarized as “provide amnesty, but on certain conditions.”

72. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama support continuing drug prohibition and the forty-year-old, Nixon-era War on Drugs.

73. Mitt Romney also supports the continued raids and prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries (and even patients) that have characterized Obama Administration as well as Bush-era policy on medical marijuana.

74. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both support executive line item vetoes.

75. Despite criticizing Bush for unconstitutional executive overreach via signing statements, Obama has continued the practice, and Mitt Romney says he will too.

76. Exemplary of their respectively mixed records on transparency, is the recent exchange between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney over releasing Romney’s tax returns and releasing the DOJ’s Fast and Furious records.

77. Because he’s adopted multiple positions on abortion throughout his political career, it’s hard to determine what his actual views are, but Mitt Romney has agreed with Obama’s position multiple times on the importance of upholding Roe v. Wade.

78. On gay marriage, what Obama and Romney have in common is that they have both changed positions (or “evolved”) on the issue, and curiously done so when it would be of maximum electoral benefit to them.

79. On campaign finance, both Romney and Obama have supported campaign spending limits.

80. On the campaign trail, both major party candidates frequently invoke and heap praise on Ronald Reagan, but it’s hard to tell if either Romney, or Obama, who once said, “In this country, prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few,” is really sincere.

81. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both supporters of strict gun control measures.

82. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney prioritize “reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” pursuing alternative energy sources, and setting regulatory efficiency standards as part of federal energy policy.

83. Like Obama, Mitt Romney has said that he believes in global warming.

84. Like Obama, Mitt Romney supports capping carbon emissions and did so as governor.

85. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both support international cap and trade policies via global carbon regulatory treaty.

86. As The Atlantic reports, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have demonstrated a capacity for taking bold and unapologetic 180-degree turns on their stated policy positions.

87. As exemplified by a Mitt Romney campaign spokesman’s infamous Etch-a-Sketch comment and Barack Obama’s plea to the Russian president for some space on missile defense until after the election, which was caught on a hot mic, both candidates have also demonstrated a willingness to be insincere on the campaign trail.

88. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s signature legislative policies are unpopular with voters.

89. This is likely one reason why both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have engaged in so much negative campaigning emphasizing their opponent’s weaknesses rather than their own strengths.

90. This is also likely for the regression of both candidates’ campaign rhetoric into the same old, worn-out, partisan talking points and the trite political rivalry of left and right; blue team and red team; Democrat and Republican.

91. Though Romney has worked in big finance (to lobby for federal bailouts as aforementioned) and Obama did a stint in finance for one year, neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama have any small business experience.

92. But both were community organizers and Harvard Law school graduates.

Several more items that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have in common are the following people, who represent multiple political points of view, and who all agree that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have too much in common and few substantive differences on important matters of public policy:

93. George Soros: “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them… So it won’t be that great a difference and I think there won’t be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilised than the previous elections have been.”

94. Newt Gingrich: “There’s a lot of parallels between these two guys…”

95. Judge Andrew Napolitano: “Can a man who essentially agrees with President Obama on all the key issues realistically become the Republican nominee for president?”

96. Rick Santorum: “And there’s no difference between President Obama and these two gentleman [Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich].”

97. Gary Johnson: “Most Americans are hard pressed to find a difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to intervention.”

98. Ralph Nader: (CBS News) ‘Consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says he sees “far too little difference” between President Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, arguing that “we deserve more choices in this country.”

In the interview with Hotsheet on Monday, Nader said the president and his likely Republican challenger are essentially the same when it comes to foreign policy and their attitudes “toward Wall Street and corporate power.” The primary difference, he said, is their position on social services.’

99. The Des Moines Register, the newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008, endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican Party nomination in 2012.

100. Voters: (Yahoo! News) “A new Quinnipiac poll shows Barack Obama holding a four-point lead over likely contender Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Politico noted that other recent polls project similar preference, with CBS/NYT calling the candidates tied, PPP giving Obama a four-point lead, and Gallup giving Romney a two-point lead. Only CNN/Opinion Research turned up a significant spread, with Obama in the lead by nine points.

Why is the spread so close? Voters don’t seem to find much difference between Obama and Romney. [emphasis added] Gas prices and women’s issues are the only issues where either candidate has a decisive advantage, Politico said, with gas prices favoring Romney and women’s issues in Obama’s camp.”

[InfoWarrior82]

Made this a while back: