I hope Pres. Obama wins; Gov. Romney just isn't trustworthy in my humble opinion.

Romney has a character flaw and holds no core beliefs, neither moderate nor conservative. He simply is a very wealthy guy who wanted to be POTUS and would say anything to anyone in order to get a vote

Pundits will point to the fact that Romney ran an entire campaign without giving any details. He wouldn't show us his taxes, but wanted us to trust him regarding what he would do to our taxes. It was a campaign based on vague assertions, mainly because he could not defend his plan. Then there were the lies: the Ohio jeep lie, the people on welfare don't have to work lie, and the I didn't say, "Let Detroit go bankrupt" lie. Just way too many lies.

Which in turn for me made him untrustworthy. Along with just about anything he said during the campaign. You never knew which side of the major issues and even minor one that he'd be on at any given moment.

I for one will be glad once Obama has won his 2nd term and we can move on from this horrors of this election. While I believe most expect a quantity of lies (or more accuracies, misleading comments and half-truths) from candidates, Romney has set the bar at a totally new and disgraceful level in that category.

Let's put this behind us, but not before we all LEARN from it. Time for real change before we end up with more elected officials that will worry only about how much is lining the pockets of their already absurdly wealthy friends.

Remember his running mate thinks rape is something that is allowed by God VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE ARE YOU MAD!"

Ron Indiana, you know by his traits and actions, as you hinted at, Romney is a sociopah.

The Sociopath in Chief

Friday, August 17th, 2012 | Posted
by Michael Chester

Can We Survive a Romney Presidency?

By
Michael Chester

Webster’s Dictionary defines a
sociopath as: “someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other
people and does not feel guilty about such behavior.” In everyday usage it can
be used to mean someone who has no conscience; someone who only cares about
what benefits himself or herself with no regard for the suffering or loss of
others.

When most people tell a lie, they
have “tells.” They may look away, give too much or too little detail, have
increased heart rate and many other indicators. They feel a sense of guilt for
lying and it shows. For a sociopath, lying comes naturally and without that
pesky conscience, they can be very convincing. Their only concern is getting
what they want.

The most famous sociopath from
recent history is probably, serial killer, Ted Bundy. He was intelligent,
charming and handsome: a deadly combination for a sociopath. He was able to
charm young women into trusting him even during a time when women should have
been even more aware of ‘stranger danger” than they normally are. His
sociopathy served him well. He could lie convincingly and his charm and
handsomeness only made him more attractive.

There are several jobs that are
perfect for the sociopath, such as being a hit man. Feeling no guilt, he is
able to carry out the murder simply to make money. A normal person would suffer
tremendous feelings of guilt for that type of behavior. A military sniper can
justify his job believing that what he does is for the greater good and may
save the lives of people on his side, but in talking to former soldiers who
were snipers, they said that they still have some conflicted feelings about
what they had to do. A sociopath would feel no conflict.

Another good job for a sociopath is
as a vulture capitalist. This is a person who takes control of a valuable
company, sucks out all of the money and discards what is left. He has no regard
for those individuals who have spent their lives building a company they can be
proud of or the employees that lose their jobs as a result. His only concern is
how much money can be made. By now, most of you have heard of the trail of
destruction left by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. For those not familiar with
their behavior I will give a brief analogy. Suppose you borrowed money and
bought a new car. Upon its delivery, you took it to a chop shop and had all of
the valuable parts removed and sold. You then took what was left to a scrapyard
and sold it as scrap. You then filed for bankruptcy and got out of paying back
the car loan, but keeping all of the money you got along the way. If you had a
lot of chutzpah you might even file an insurance claim to get paid for the loss
of the car. Of course, in the real world, you would be arrested and charged
with multiple counts of fraud, but in Mitt Land this is all legal.

A lot of jokes have been made about
strapping his dog to the roof of the car for a road trip, but how could anyone
with an ounce of human compassion for his family’s pet treat him so cruelly?
Only a sociopath would put his convenience ahead of the health and safety of
his children’s pet. Why? To have more room for his valuables or maybe so he
didn’t have to listen to the dog’s barking. Animal cruelty is one of earliest
indicators of a sociopathic personality and often precedes human cruelty.

As a candidate, Mitt Romney has
changed his position on so many things so many times, that the running joke is:
“If you don’t like Mitt’s position on something, wait five minutes and he will
change it.” As a sociopath, he has no problem saying whatever he feels his
audience wants to hear. All politicians do this to a point, but most have a
line that they won’t cross. If such a line exists for Mitt Romney, no one has
yet to see it.

He has that same deadly combination
of traits that Ted Bundy had; he is charming, handsome, educated, and
intelligent. Unlike Bundy, his goals are money, power and prestige, not literal
rape and murder. These are more socially acceptable goals and I guess we can be
grateful for that. Many “normal” people share these goals and attributes and
there is nothing wrong with them, it is how you go about achieving them. The
sociopath will do whatever it takes with the only limits being what he can get
away with.

Along the way he has picked up some
endorsements that one could reasonably question. He has been endorsed by the
National Rifle Association as a pro gun candidate even though his history is
far from a pro gun position. Here is a brief history of how his position has
“evolved.”

From the 2008 Opposition Research
report prepared by the McCain Campaign.

• In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed
  Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” and
  “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”
• Romney called Clinton crime bill “a
  big step forward.”
• As governor, Romney quadrupled gun
  licensing fees and vowed not to “chip away” at tough gun laws
• In 2004, Romney signed permanent
  state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federal assault
  weapons ban.
• In January 2006, Romney said he
  owned a gun – then two days later admitted he did not and the gun belonged to
  his son.
• Romney bragged about being member of
  the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, just before
  launching his presidential campaign.
• Romney recently said he’s “been a
  hunter pretty much all my life” but later admitted he hunted only twice in his
  life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted “small varmints … more
  than two times.”
• In 2006 press conference, Romney
  claimed he had been hunting “many times” after returning from quail hunt in
  Georgia.

In an editorial endorsing Mitt
Romney, Guns and Ammo Magazine writer Doug Howlett stated:

Life Under Romney

Whether you believe Romney is a true
champion of the Second Amendment or feel he’s saying what he must to get
elected, odds are if the NRA helps him win, his gratitude will be such that he
won’t do anything to upset that support throughout his term. That means it is
doubtful we will see a return to any “assault weapons” bans or other federal
legislation that will infringe upon gun rights. Without question, where gun
rights are concerned, Romney is the hands down choice.

Now there is a ringing endorsement.
What he is actually saying is that no matter what Mitt Romney actually
believes, he has received his thirty pieces of silver (actually with inflation
it is several million pieces of silver) and is now bought and paid for. He will
do whatever we tell him to do.

To be fair, President Obama has also
shifted his position on gun control over the years. As president, he has signed
legislation that permits Amtrak passengers to carry guns in their checked
baggage and another that allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges
to possess concealed guns. He has not pushed for actions he supported in his
2008 campaign, including closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows
unlicensed private firearm sellers to sell weapons at gun shows without
conducting the background checks and reporting requirements that registered gun
dealers must conduct.

Here is a clip from the HBO series,
Newsroom. The show is a fictional account of a TV news station, but the facts
presented here and the clips within the clip are real.

The bottom line on the gun issue is
that regardless of the outcome of the election, not much will change. The
president does not have the authority to usurp the second amendment and
Congress does not have the will to substantially change the laws.

Romney has promised that if elected,
on day one he will repeal “Obamacare.” He has also promised to do about 20
other things on day one so it should be a busy day. Of course, the health care
legislation was passed by congress and signed into law and it would take an act
of congress to repeal it so he lying again. The Supremes have upheld the
penalty on those who can afford to purchase health care insurance but choose
not to, calling it a tax. Of course, Mitt has jumped on the word “tax” and is
now claiming that Obama is imposing a new high tax on everyone. The tax only
applies to those who are able to afford insurance and choose to not buy it.
Here, let me have an expert explain it in detail, as reported on Fox News. (not
exactly a bastion of liberal views)

Mitt Romney has finally chosen a
clone er… running mate and I find the choice of Paul Ryan to be a curious one.
I don’t see an advantage in this choice as supporters of Ryan were already
firmly in Romney’s camp. It also focuses scrutiny on the Ryan budget plan, a
plan so extreme that even some conservatives find it onerous. Romney has his
own plan to benefit the one percent, but it is slightly different. Basically it
treats the middle class like a target company from his Bain days. Squeeze all
of the money out that you can and discard what is left.

I can understand the disappointment
people feel towards Barack Obama: I feel much of it myself. The economy has
only made modest gains and we are still in Afghanistan. At least he has
resisted attacking Iran, which I believe is in Romney’s plans. If there were a
“none of the above” option on the ballot, I believe that none would win in a
landslide, but given the reality that the real choice boils down to Obama and
Romney, the choice should be obvious. Hold your nose and do what you have to
do.

This sums it all up.

Romney, 'Returning to where in all began and to where it all ended'. Good epitaph for his tombstone.

If Obama is defeated, will you FR libbies become more ugly?

If Obama loses, whose fault will it be?

he didn't win. That'll be NO

Mitt, there's a place called the dustbin of history. Please go there immediately and shut the door behind you. Firmly.