Why this site and Daily Paul are so much better than Free Republic

[RebelRoss0587]

Hey everyone, I just wanted to bring something to your attention and thank you all as well.

A couple years ago, I discovered the site Free Republic and posted there a few times during the primary. Recently, I checked back in to see what the main topics of discussion were and there was some outrageous Romney-bashing going on there. I am willing to admit that Mitt isn't perfect and there are some things people can question about him, but some of these statements were so far from the truth that I could hardly believe that no one was correcting these statements.

Then, when I made one post where I simply posted http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8331196519 and said people who have questions about Mitt should look there, my post was deleted and my account was suspended.

I also found out that Free Republic has been purging their site of everyone who has ever said anything in support of Mitt unless they recant like the Inquisition. With the Conservative/Libertarian movement in the minority, I think it's important to allow as many people in like you all do here and then debate people and use an open-mind to filter through the info to decide what is true and what isn't.

With that said, I want to thank all of you for allowing me to post here and for not being nearly as hostile or defensive as the "Free" Republic which has become anything but.

[acptulsa]

I'm liable to strenuously disagree with anything nice you ever say about that well-moussed brat. But I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ;)

[Kludge]

Don't expect your welcome to stay if you consistently post material unrelated to the intent of this forum.

(Oh, wait....)

[acptulsa]

Don't expect your welcome to stay if you consistently post material unrelated to the intent of this forum.

(Oh, wait....)

...says the man with fourteen thousand irrelevant posts.

[Justinjj1]

Mitt is a major douche.

[RebelRoss0587]

I'm liable to strenuously disagree with anything nice you ever say about that well-moussed brat. But I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ;)

Thank you and I expect nothing less from here. I'm just blown away at the leadership of that site and how much that site has gone down the tubes when most websites devoted to similar ideals are growing like never before.

[nelsonwinters]

RebelRoss (or anyone else), Do you know if Mitt has made any statement in support of Auditing the Fed? The bail outs (back when the fall when the GOP was on the Bailout Express)? Has his stance on foreign affairs changed since the primaries? I'm not attacking... I haven't kept up with him and have no idea of his current positions on these issues.

[heavenlyboy34]

you're welcome, OP. :) ~hugs~

[Danke]

...says the man with fourteen thousand irrelevant posts.

Don't make me activate the Kludge Spludge Protection Team!

[armstrong]

It works, its simple and effective why change it?

[Elwar]

Why hasn't this Mitt ass kisser been banned yet? Admin? Hello??

The Obama Forum is more tolerant than the Free Republic.

[Anti Federalist]

The "free" in free republic vanished long ago.

If you didn't bow down and kiss W's ass at least once a day you were labeled "unclean" and summarily exiled, no matter how many travesties he visited on the people that were neither "free" nor had anything to do with a republic.

Now the GOP old guard and the neo cons are sitting around licking their wounds, wondering how in the hell Obama happened, never once stopping to consider that Obama is nothing more than a mocha version of W.

Continuity of policy and government...put another way:

Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

And neither the fools at the HuffPo or the Daily Kos or the freepers or Shamity's acolytes will have the courage to admit it. They'll just keep playing he game as the nation goes down in flames.

[angelatc]

I also found out that Free Republic has been purging their site of everyone who has ever said anything in support of Mitt unless they recant like the Inquisition. With the Conservative/Libertarian movement in the minority, I think it's important to allow as many people in like you all do here and then debate people and use an open-mind to filter through the info to decide what is true and what isn't.



Welcome to our world. They booted us out about a year and a half ago. Who are they rallying behind these days?

[RebelRoss0587]

Welcome to our world. They booted us out about a year and a half ago. Who are they rallying behind these days?

I didn't realize they booted you guys too. What the heck is wrong with them?

They seem to only allow supporters of Demint, Huckabee, Palin, and Hunter but I got banned so quickly that I might have missed some others that they support.


Do you know if Mitt has made any statement in support of Auditing the Fed? The bail outs (back when the fall when the GOP was on the Bailout Express)? Has his stance on foreign affairs changed since the primaries? I'm not attacking... I haven't kept up with him and have no idea of his current positions on these issues.

I am unaware of Mitt saying anything either way about auditing the Fed although I know he's been critical of some of their actions. He also wrote an op-ed back in November title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" where he was highly critical of the auto bailout. He also rallied the House Republicans to unanimously reject Obama's stimulus plan. Lastly, on foreign affairs, I doubt Mitt has changed his views, but events in the world have changed which alters what the best path forward is.

Most notably, Mitt wants our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible as long as it can be done without jeopardizing the security of the Iraqi citizens. Also, he was the first major voice to call the Iranian elections a fraud.

[acptulsa]

Also, he was the first major voice to call the Iranian elections a fraud.

And was he correct about that? Or merely first on an unproven bandwagon?

[RebelRoss0587]

The Iranian elections were clearly a fraud.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

[Dan Chisholm]

Free Republic is out of control right now. They are hurting the cause of liberty far more than they are strengthening it.

[Steeleye]

Free Republic is out of control right now. They are hurting the cause of liberty far more than they are strengthening it.

It's a Palin love fest all the time. They sit around pictures of her and discuss how anyone who doesn't support her is a RINO and that she's the savior of the GOP. It's kind of sickening. I don't mind Palin, but this stuff makes me want to flip.

[disorderlyvision]

Wait a second....:confused: The OP supports Romney :confused:

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc329/disorderlyvision/monty_python_witch-701441.jpg

He's a witch! BAN HIM!!!!!!

[Andrew-Austin]

Why hasn't this Mitt ass kisser been banned yet? Admin? Hello??

The Obama Forum is more tolerant than the Free Republic.

What the fuck? And we're neither the Obama forum or Free Republic, so we don't need to act like we are by banning him.

[RebelRoss0587]

If they ban enough people from their site, they'll have to shut down because of how much money it takes to run that site right? Or is the founder of that site actually making money from it because $320,000 a year seems pretty high to run a website like that. I'm surprised he is able to get that much in donations with how close-minded and unwelcoming he is.

[Anti Federalist]

If they ban enough people from their site, they'll have to shut down because of how much money it takes to run that site right? Or is the founder of that site actually making money from it because $320,000 a year seems pretty high to run a website like that. I'm surprised he is able to get that much in donations with how close-minded and unwelcoming he is.

I've often questioned that $320k figure myself.

Pretty bloated given how kludgy that site is.

[Steeleye]

I've often questioned that $320k figure myself.

Pretty bloated given how kludgy that site is.

There's actually a breakdown of the site's expenses: https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/budget

[angelatc]

The Iranian elections were clearly a fraud.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Nonsense. Ahmadinejad was always favored to win. Before the election, the opposition was only hoping, not predicting, that they could keep him from getting the 50% that he needed.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/06/evidence-for-fraud-in-iranian-election.html

One of the biggest reasons they like him is his willingness to stand up to us.

[angelatc]

He also wrote an op-ed back in November title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" where he was highly critical of the auto bailout.

He also openly laughed at Ron Paul when he predicted the economic melt-down, and called Michigan a "one-state recession."


He also rallied the House Republicans to unanimously reject Obama's stimulus plan. Really? And here I thought that it was Minority Leader Boehner (along with millions of calls and emails ) that kept his ducks in a row.

[RebelRoss0587]

Really? And here I thought that it was Minority Leader Boehner (along with millions of calls and emails ) that kept his ducks in a row.

Mitt should never have laughed but I always looked at it as he was taken by surprise to what Ron said because he was so focused on debating McCain and Guiliani

As for your quote about Boehner, it's true that him and Eric Cantor did a wonderful job there but Mitt have a stirring address to the entire Republican House at a retreat they had right before the vote that surely had an impact because of the standing ovation Mitt received.

As for the elections, did you even read the article I posted? Fraud is evident. We will never know for sure who would have won because the results were fraudulent, but we do know that Ahmadinejad overreached to try to make his re-election look more impressive.

Steeleye, back to the expenses of Free Republic, I've seen that breakdown as well and I've never run a website like that, but I don't know why the taxes are so high. The man running that site has to be pocketing a chunk of that money unless I'm missing something.

[Anti Federalist]

There's actually a breakdown of the site's expenses: https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/budget

$10,700 a month in admin and taxes????

[NYgs23]

I can remember when Freep Republic was quite politically diverse. It had a fair share of neocons, of course, but also traditional Reagan/Buckleyite conservatives, Old Right paleocons, libertarians, Republican party-liners, third-party people, survivalists, monarchists, crunchy cons, neo-Confederates, religious righters of almost every religion, center-right moderates, single-issue people, and contingents from a variety of foreign countries. I'm not really sure what's there now, but it seems increasingly dead. The Bush Administration smothered it and this past election appears to have finished it off. I'm not sure why a Romneyite would decide to join a Ron Paul forum instead, though.

[RSLudlum]

I've often questioned that $320k figure myself.

Pretty bloated given how kludgy that site is.


Sounds reasonable esp. when put in light of the gov't just recently allowing a no bid contract of 18million for recovery.gov. :rolleyes:

[Steeleye]

$10,700 a month in admin and taxes????

They have a database of articles and comments going back to at least '99 and pay employees to maintain everything, plus they are based in California

[Anti Federalist]

They have a database of articles and comments going back to at least '99 and pay employees to maintain everything, plus they are based in California

Then they had better remove their heads from their asses and stop running people off left and right, or they're not going to continue to crack that nut every month.

[RebelRoss0587]

Maybe we can pluck some of them outta that place as Free Republic slowly runs itself into the ground.

As to the question why a Romney supporter would come here, let me answer you. I enjoy good debate, and this site plus the Daily Paul are very good and keeping me informed about what important things are going on that the media doesn't report on.

I truly hope the Republican Party becomes much more Libertarian in the future as well.

Finally, I hope that the Romney and Paul camps can unite behind certain causes because a divided GOP only helps the democrats. If Obama and the Democrats become convinced that they are going to be re-elected, they will advance even more of their radical agenda that is destroying America as we know it.

[ItsTime]

Maybe we can pluck some of them outta that place as Free Republic slowly runs itself into the ground.

As to the question why a Romney supporter would come here, let me answer you. I enjoy good debate, and this site plus the Daily Paul are very good and keeping me informed about what important things are going on that the media doesn't report on.

I truly hope the Republican Party becomes much more Libertarian in the future as well.

Finally, I hope that the Romney and Paul camps can unite behind certain causes because a divided GOP only helps the democrats. If Obama and the Democrats become convinced that they are going to be re-elected, they will advance even more of their radical agenda that is destroying America as we know it.

You are acting like there is a difference between Dems and Reps.

Mitt "I like mandates" Romeny's failed socialist health care plan is reason enough to never vote for him.

[specsaregood]

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conservative+Free+Republic+blog+free+speech+flap+a fter+racial+slurs+directed+Obama+children/1782375/story.html



Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children

"A typical street whore." "A bunch of ghetto thugs." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion."

These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative 'Free Republic' blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.

The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds."

Though this may sound like the sort of thing one might read on an Aryan Nation or white power website, they actually appeared on what is commonly considered one of the prime online locations for U.S. Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizing - and for a short time, the comments seemed to have the okay of site administrators.

Moderators of the blog left the comments - and commenters - in place until a complaint was lodged by a writer doing research on the conservative movement, almost a full day later.

More at link above....

[RebelRoss0587]

You are acting like there is a difference between Dems and Reps.

Romney HATES mandates and LOVES the line-item veto

Anyway, the post you quoted plainly states that I want the Republican Party to become more Libertarian, so obviously I think there is a problem with the GOP or why would I want it to change. I couldn't even vote for McCain so I voted 3rd Party instead.

Also, if anyone is interested, Free Republic is talking about this at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2290948/posts

[erowe1]

I truly hope the Republican Party becomes much more Libertarian in the future as well.

Finally, I hope that the Romney and Paul camps can unite behind certain causes because a divided GOP only helps the democrats.

I don't understand. If you want the GOP to become more libertarian, what do you mean by that? Are you one of those people who defines "libertarian" as a package of policies that are as fiscally conservative as the average Republican and as socially liberal as the average Democrat? Or do you mean something more like what Ron Paul is? If the latter, then why would you support Romney? Romney is smack dab in the middle of the Republican establishment. He was the Bush family's pick for 2008. He differs very little from McCain in policy. He ran on a platform of increasing the overall size and cost of the federal government, as well as further centralizing governmental authority, including both more power of the federal government over the states, and more power of global organizations over the other states of the world. He is completely behind the notion of the USA as the world's policeman to the point that he pretty much staked his 2008 campaign on trying to paint himself as more hawkish than McCain. And his record as governor is a typical establishment Republican liberal record. I'm not sure what you mean about his hating mandates--it might be a semantic difference. But here's a good overview of the health care plan he championed in MA from a free market perspective:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp97/bp97index.html

I can almost understand why so many from the conservative wing of the GOP supported him in 2008, when they were just disgusted with the whole field and they figured he was less bad than Huckabee or McCain. But I can't fathom why those same people would stick with him for 2012 when they can start with a clean slate.

And I definitely can't see why anybody would hope for a unification of Ron Paul supporters with Romney supporters. Why would that happen, when the candidates Ron Paul and Romney are such diametric opposites in their beliefs? They are at virtually opposite ends of the spectrum within the GOP.

Also, the line item veto? Seriously? I doubt you know much about Ron Paul if you think his supporters are likely to like that. RP is a constitutionalist who wants the executive branch to have less power than what it now has, not more. And he doesn't buy the myth that the problem of our growing federal budget has anything to do with earmarks, which is what line item veto proponents tend to base their support of that on.

[specsaregood]

Also, the line item veto? Seriously? I doubt you know much about Ron Paul if you think his supporters are likely to like that. RP is a constitutionalist who wants the executive branch to have less power than what it now has, not more. And he doesn't buy the myth that the problem of our growing federal budget has anything to do with earmarks, which is what line item veto proponents tend to base their support of that on.

Or to sum up what you just said: The Line Item Veto gives the Executive branch the power to Legislate; thus increasing its power. Giving the executive branch more power is the exact opposite of what we should be pushing for.

[erowe1]

Or to sum up what you just said: The Line Item Veto gives the Executive branch the power to Legislate; thus increasing its power. Giving the executive branch more power is the exact opposite of what we should be pushing for.

Exactly. If we really want to push something that will improve things in a way like most line-item veto fans think it will, we should push the Read the Bills Act, or the One Subject at a Time Act.
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp

[angelatc]

As for the elections, did you even read the article I posted? Fraud is evident.


No it isn't. Did you read the link I posted?

[angelatc]

Romney HATES mandates and LOVES the line-item veto


The line-item veto is a horrible idea. It puts too much power in the Executive Branch.

Romney is on record as saying he likes mandates! Why do his people keep insisting that he hates them?

[RebelRoss0587]

The line-item veto is a horrible idea. It puts too much power in the Executive Branch.

Romney is on record as saying he likes mandates! Why do his people keep insisting that he hates them?

Romney hates mandates and is on record saying so, so that's why. It's the worst part of the health care plan in Mass. and he says that often when asked about the plan.

Also, I did read your article and thanks for being honest that you didn't read mine.

The line-item veto is a tricky one for me because I had congress so much and know how much money Mitt could save if he had the line-item veto. It seems like the easiest and quickest way to get rid of so many of these ridiculous earmarks, but I'm open to other ideas you all might have.

To erowe1, I watched the very long Peter Schiff speech at YouTube - BRILLIANT PETER SCHIFF SPEECH AT 2009 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT PART 1 OF 13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1U6G3rbYj8) and that's what I mean by saying I want the Republican Party to become more Libertarian. I don't think our country has enough time left to allow a 3rd party to emerge before Obama and the liberals ruin too much.

[erowe1]

A line item veto wouldn't save a penny. It would only let the executive branch rather than the legislative branch allocate the funding that a bill includes. Romney would be no better in doing that than Congress. But even if you are convinced he would, the power a line item veto would grant him would apply not only to him but also to every president after him.
[As an aside: This is the same fallacy Republicans made in supporting the Patriot Act. They never would have supported it in the Clinton or Obama years. But somehow, when the guy they gave that power to was one they considered more of a friend to them than those guys, they went for it, not having the foresight to realize it would only be a matter of time before someone else inherited that power who be not nearly as friendly to them in the ways he defines the word "terrorist."]

Here's a question about how a line item veto might hypothetically cut federal spending or not:

Suppose we have a $100 Billion education bill. Included within that $100 Billion are $50 of pork barrel spending on such things as a Ted Kennedy Lobster museum, and carving Obama's face on Mt. Rushmore. In scenario A we have a Republican president with a line item veto who will cut all the earmarks but supports the education bill itself. And in scenario B we have the same president, only without the line item veto.

Which scenario would be better, A or B?

I say B would be better (or rather, less bad). Because scenario A would direct the full $100 Billion to the federal government controlling the indoctrination of our youth. But in B only half as much would go to that evil cause, while the rest will go to those much less harmful pork projects.

[specsaregood]

Romney hates mandates and is on record saying so, so that's why.

Oh really?

Republican Debate Transcript, New Hampshire
Published January 5, 2008


MR. GIBSON: (Off mike) -- Governor Romney -- (off mike) -- mandate and that's an obstacle, although you've backed away from mandates on a national basis.

MR. ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. Do the mandates work? Mandates --

MR. THOMPSON: I beg your pardon? (Laughter.)

MR. ROMNEY: Let me --

MR. THOMPSON: I didn't know you were going to admit that.

MR. ROMNEY: Let me -- oh, absolutely.



But to be fair, with captain flip-flop romney it is tough to know what his position is at any given time, so no fault of your own.

[erowe1]

Oh really?

Republican Debate Transcript, New Hampshire
Published January 5, 2008



But to be fair, with captain flip-flop romney it is tough to know what his position is at any given time, so no fault of your own.

The source of the confusion is that that's a transcript of an audio where we are ignorant as to what he actually said, since there's no audible distinction between him saying he likes mandates, and saying he likes man-dates. So he still has an out.

[RebelRoss0587]

The source of the confusion is that that's a transcript of an audio where we are ignorant as to what he actually said, since there's no audible distinction between him saying he likes mandates, and saying he likes man-dates. So he still has an out.

That is a really weird series of quotes that seems like Mitt didn't understand the question or something because I've heard him complain about the democratically forced mandates in his health care plan. Also, I'd be interested to know the wider context of that discussion.

As for the line item veto, if you are correct about how that works, then you have educated me and provided yet another reason why this board is so much more enjoyable for me than Free Republic which I got banned from today when I asked if all Romney supporters were getting banned and the founder of the site said yes and banned me. He actually said something to the effect that he loves living in a free country where he can do what he wants.

[specsaregood]

That is a really weird series of quotes that seems like Mitt didn't understand the question or something

Come on, don't be silly. You said:

Romney hates mandates and is on record saying so, so that's why.

I showed you a quote where Romney says,

MR. ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates.
source:Republican Debate Transcript, New Hampshire
Published January 5, 2008

So he obviously doesn't "hate" mandates.

I'd quote you the context; but it really goes on for quite a while with him and Thompson nitpicking at each other and nothing really of any real content is said.
I have the transcript locally so I don't have a link (downloaded all of them some time ago); but if you search online you'll find it no problem.

[Thrashertm]

RebelRoss (or anyone else), Do you know if Mitt has made any statement in support of Auditing the Fed? The bail outs (back when the fall when the GOP was on the Bailout Express)? Has his stance on foreign affairs changed since the primaries? I'm not attacking... I haven't kept up with him and have no idea of his current positions on these issues.

I remember that Mitt was in favor of the bailouts. He basically endorsed McCain and Obama's position.

[Steeleye]

http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mt1.jpg

Pretty much sums it all up.

[RebelRoss0587]

I remember that Mitt was in favor of the bailouts. He basically endorsed McCain and Obama's position.

Mitt said TARP was needed to stop our financial sector from having a complete collapse and he was right. When that was passed, a huge amount of businesses had about a week left until they wouldn't have been able to pay their employees because of the frozen credit market which would have forced mass mass bankruptcies which would have led to way higher unemployment and a precipitous downward spiral that we definitely didn't want to see. Mitt has been against any other bailout though because Mitt looks at the big picture and knows that most bankruptcies and failures are good for the economy long-run.

When TARP was passed, we were seeing the result of over 20 years of irresponsible mismanagement by both the government and the private sector culminating into one cataclysmic event that we will hopefully never see again. I am very proud that Mitt took a stand on that even when he knew it wasn't popular with conservatives because he knew how important the decision was.

[someperson]

The TARP fund wasn't even used for its intended purpose, so, essentially, any "good reasons" Romney had to back that atrocity-against-future-generations were rendered irrelevant. In other words, if one honestly believes the TARP program has been successful, one must also recognize that Romney was still a failure, as the program he supported was never actually implemented. The damaging effects of TARP will materialize in due time... all the damage control in the world isn't going to make TARP seem like a good idea.

[RebelRoss0587]

The TARP fund wasn't even used for its intended purpose, so, essentially, any "good reasons" Romney had to back that atrocity-against-future-generations were rendered irrelevant. In other words, if one honestly believes the TARP program has been successful, one must also recognize that Romney was still a failure, as the program he supported was never actually implemented. The damaging effects of TARP will materialize in due time... all the damage control in the world isn't going to make TARP seem like a good idea.

I know it's unrealistic for me to expect people to read all of my posts before they make a comment like that, but I have already addressed that twice. Mitt doesn't support the way TARP is being used now, and has complained publicly about it, but it was the only option in that emergency situation.

[erowe1]

I know it's unrealistic for me to expect people to read all of my posts before they make a comment like that, but I have already addressed that twice. Mitt doesn't support the way TARP is being used now, and has complained publicly about it, but it was the only option in that emergency situation.

You seem to base your opinion of Mitt very much on what he says, and even at that, you seem to restrict it to the times his position is the one you like, rather than the other times when he says the opposite.

With supporters like you, it's just too easy for a well-polished opportunist like him to maintain a high level of support. All he needs to do is keep saying conservative things to conservative audiences, and liberal things to liberal audiences, and trust that everybody will just base their opinions of him on the times they agree with him, while keeping his record as governor as far from their attention as possible.

On TARP it doesn't matter how many times he complains about this or that detail of it after the fact, when doing so doesn't count for anything except satisfying someone like you. What counts is that he supported it. And saying, "I don't like it, but it's our only choice in this emergency." is still supporting it. And that line, by the way, is also the same line that pretty much every single supporter of TARP uses to explain themselves, Democrat and Republican alike. It's nothing but meaningless pandering.

[acptulsa]

Mitt doesn't support the way TARP is being used now, and has complained publicly about it, but it was the only option in that emergency situation.

I'm not so sure that it was the only option. But that aside, why was he among the people laughing at Dr. Paul's dire predictions about the economy back a year ago last spring? Why has he said so little about the causes of the 'emergency situation' and how to prevent them? And given these things (and more, like the 'Big Dig'), why should I entrust the economy to him?

[erowe1]

Romney hates mandates and is on record saying so, so that's why. It's the worst part of the health care plan in Mass. and he says that often when asked about the plan.

Also, I did read your article and thanks for being honest that you didn't read mine.

The line-item veto is a tricky one for me because I had congress so much and know how much money Mitt could save if he had the line-item veto. It seems like the easiest and quickest way to get rid of so many of these ridiculous earmarks, but I'm open to other ideas you all might have.

To erowe1, I watched the very long Peter Schiff speech at YouTube - BRILLIANT PETER SCHIFF SPEECH AT 2009 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT PART 1 OF 13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1U6G3rbYj8) and that's what I mean by saying I want the Republican Party to become more Libertarian. I don't think our country has enough time left to allow a 3rd party to emerge before Obama and the liberals ruin too much.

Peter Schiff is great. I have seen that video and don't have time to rewatch it. But, as you probably know, Schiff was an adviser to one of the 2008 presidential candidates, and that was not Romney, it was Paul. And Ron Paul is the only current Republican in national office whose policies are quite similar to what Schiff advocates. Romney is the exact opposite. Here's a good overview of Romney's 2008 platform from the National Taxpayers' Union:
http://www.ntu.org/pdf/P0801Romney_Agenda.pdf

What I don't get is how you can be a Romney supporter and still say that you want the GOP to become more like something that is diametrically opposed to everything Romney stands for? I also don't get why you ended up voting third party in 2008 (don't get me wrong, I'm glad you did), since McCain is practically identical to Romney in policy (except that Romney proposed increasing federal spending even more than McCain did) and all the third party options were quite different.