So we vote for Romney. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : So we vote for Romney.


frank4570
04-12-2012, 22:30
We vote for him this year because he is so much better than Obama. He is kind of an insult to the constitution, particularly the 2nd amendment, but we have to be realists.
In a few years we will vote for Obama, or rather somebody like him, because he is so much better than the other guy.
Good for us. We're awesome.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 22:38
:puking:

Doc44

JBnTX
04-12-2012, 22:39
We vote for him this year because he is so much better than Obama. He is kind of an insult to the constitution, particularly the 2nd amendment, but we have to be realists.
In a few years we will vote for Obama, or rather somebody like him, because he is so much better than the other guy.
Good for us. We're awesome.


Then what's the best solution?
Where's that perfect candidate?

Javelin
04-12-2012, 22:41
Then what's the best solution?
Where's that perfect candidate?

I don't know what it looks like. But I know it doesn't look like a Mitt Romney.

RCP
04-12-2012, 22:51
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:

G22Dude
04-12-2012, 22:52
The American people at times are like children. They don't want to hear the truth so they would never vote for a candidate who tells them that our economy is busted and we need to stop spending ect. We will vote for the lesser of two evils or just not participate, Unfortunately this is the trend. None of the Republicans or Conservatives were perfect. There never will be such a candidate. We already saw what happens when folks think they have a Messiah running to be the POTUS, they ignore all logic and reason and pull the lever. Romney is flawed in serious ways, but I'd rather vote for him than endure another four years of the One

uglyblackguns
04-12-2012, 22:56
I am not happy with Romney but everyone that is waiting for the perfect candidate to show up before they vote will just not ever vote. The libs and dems are counting on that.
For the record I voted for Paul in Az primary. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean I pout and don't vote or even worse vote for the incumbent idiot just to prove a point.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

JBnTX
04-12-2012, 22:57
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:


That's like saying, "I'm not eating carrots".

It doesn't matter one hoot.
Makes absolutely no difference of any kind, to anything.

Who you're voting FOR is what's important and the only course
of action that could possibly make any difference or change anything.

Stubudd
04-12-2012, 22:58
Then what's the best solution?
Where's that perfect candidate?

hmmm...

it'd have to be somebody willing to make massive cuts immediately to the big programs, in order to try to avert the catastrophe brewing on that front. Somebody with a very strong track record of conservativism, not a flip flopping liar known to tell anybody whatever they want to hear any time of the day- somebody we could trust to really go to work on dismantling this monster we've allowed to be created, with the track record to prove it.

It'd have to be somebody not already bought and paid for before they even make the office- somebody with the strong support of actual humans, not "corporations are people too". He'd also have to have pretty wide appeal; there are quite a few progressive idealists out there, and even more folks on the dole happy to let the idealists pander to them- so he'd have to appeal to a wide range of people, in addition to the base which ought to be thrilled to have a real conservative to vote for a change.

Maybe a real conservative that could also appeal to those anti-war type dems and independents, and those for whom some social issues like gay marriage are important. A proven, true conservative that could also appeal to independents looking for a real change, and even appeal to some dems sick of no more war promises that don't come true.

Yea, the closest to perfect we're likely to get was right here in your face, and you blew it. You've been had once again, because you never stop to listen or think, you just keep talking.

427
04-12-2012, 22:58
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:

Not surprising since you've already said your OK with Obama being re-elected if/when Paul doesn't get the nomination.

RCP
04-12-2012, 22:59
That's like saying, "I'm not eating carrots".

It doesn't matter one hoot.
Makes absolutely no difference of any kind, to anything.

Who you're voting FOR is what's important and the only course
of action that could possibly make any difference or change anything.

Thats not true because voting for Mitt Romney will not make any difference of any kind or change anything. You might think it will but it won't. :wavey:

Javelin
04-12-2012, 23:01
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” -Mitt Romney

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense, they are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” -Mitt Romney 2004

:steamed:

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:02
Not surprising since you've already said your OK with Obama being re-elected if/when Paul doesn't get the nomination.

I just fail to see that electing Romney would be any different. Were screwed with either of them at least with Obama we will get the chance to try again with a true Conservative in another 4 years instead of having to wait for another 8.

Javelin
04-12-2012, 23:03
Oh and I will NOT vote for any Progressive. I'd cut my damn hand off first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9xTIDB106g

427
04-12-2012, 23:03
I just fail to see that electing Romney would be any different. Were screwed with either of them at least with Obama we will get the chance to try again with a true Conservative in another 4 years instead of having to wait for another 8.

Are you voting for Obama? Yes or no?

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:06
Are you voting for Obama? Yes or no?

Nope, I either won't vote or will vote for a 3rd party (i.e Gary Johnson). Yeah, yeah I know thats supposedly a vote for Obama. Whatever, if the GOP really wanted my vote they wouldn't be giving me Mitt Romney.

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 23:07
We'd rather vote for the person that claims they won't screw us over but will more slowly, rather than vote for the person that claims they will as fast as they can. I'd say we need a wake up call but it seems like our choices are between someone who won't call and someone who will, but only let it ring once before hanging up.

Stubudd
04-12-2012, 23:07
Are you voting for Obama? Yes or no?

Are you voting for a progressive from massachusetts? Yes or no?

JBnTX
04-12-2012, 23:07
Yea, the closest to perfect we're likely to get was right here in your face, and you blew it. You've been had once again, because you never stop to listen or think, you just keep talking.



I've not blown anything, because I've not cast a vote yet.
Think about it!

But I do intend to vote for the republican nominee in November.

And I just might vote for Ron Paul in the Texas primary, just for the hell of it.
It certainly can't hurt anything.

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:08
Oh and I will NOT vote for any Progressive. I'd cut my damn hand off first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9xTIDB106g

Doesn't matter they aren't listening. They are all so blinded by hate for Obama that they're willing to elect someone just as bad.

Javelin
04-12-2012, 23:09
Nope, I either won't vote or will vote for a 3rd party (i.e Gary Johnson). Yeah, yeah I know thats supposedly a vote for Obama. Whatever, if the GOP really wanted my vote they wouldn't be giving me Mitt Romney.

:agree:

After 2008 I made a promise to myself that I will never again just vote against the other guy but actually vote FOR the best candidate. Last 10 years we had to re-elect a won't-flush-turd and in 2008 we had to hold our nose and vote for a Rhino. I'm not doing it anymore.

And if the BEST candidate is a liberal or Progressive and there is no other then I will vote for myself.

:tongueout:

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:11
:agree:

After 2008 I made a promise to myself that I will never again just vote against the other guy but actually vote FOR the best candidate. Last 10 years we had to re-elect a won't-flush-turd and in 2008 we had to hold our nose and vote for a Rhino. I'm not doing it anymore.

And if the BEST candidate is a liberal or Progressive and there is no other then I will vote for myself.

:tongueout:

Javelin for POTUS! Hell, you got my vote! :cowboy:

Javelin
04-12-2012, 23:13
Javelin for POTUS! Hell, you got my vote! :cowboy:

:rofl:

I think I just heard Rabbi blow coffee all over his computer screen all the way down in San Antonio.

:tongueout:

JBnTX
04-12-2012, 23:13
Thats not true because voting for Mitt Romney will not make any difference of any kind or change anything. You might think it will but it won't. :wavey:


There's absolutely no way possible that you can know that with any certainty.

All you can do is speculate based on his prior record, which may or may not be an accurate indicator of his future actions.

Javelin
04-12-2012, 23:16
You don't say the thing Mitt Romney said without being anti-gun and a Progressive liberal.

427
04-12-2012, 23:18
Nope, I either won't vote or will vote for a 3rd party (i.e Gary Johnson). Yeah, yeah I know thats supposedly a vote for Obama. Whatever, if the GOP really wanted my vote they wouldn't be giving me Mitt Romney.

Here's little FYI Johnson's stand on immigration

Our current NM gov. Susana Martinez is trying to stop illegals from getting NM drivers licenses that was signed into law by Bill Richardson. The democratic dominated state legislature killed the bill earlier this year. Martinez wouldn't compromise on a watered down bill that did nothing.

Former Gov. Johnson slams Gov. Martinez on immigration
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Former-Gov--Johnson-slams-Gov--Martinez-on-immigration

I'm from NM. I like GJ, but I'm not voting 3rd party.

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:18
There's absolutely no way possible that you can know that with any certainty.

All you can do is speculate based on his prior record, which may or may not be an accurate indicator of his future actions.

So whats the best way to predict future behavior? :whistling:

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:20
Here's little FYI Johnson's stand on immigration

Our current NM gov. Susana Martinez is trying to stop illegals from getting NM drivers licenses signed into law by Bill Richardson. The democratic dominated state legislature killed the bill.

Former Gov. Johnson slams Gov. Martinez on immigration
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Former-Gov--Johnson-slams-Gov--Martinez-on-immigration

I'm from NM. I like GJ, but I'm not voting 3rd party.

That seems a bit trivial compared to voting for a guy who pioneered what is now known as Obamacare and signed a PERMANENT assault weapons ban into law don't ya think? Oh that's right it was ok when our guy did it and it was ok because he was fulfilling the wishes of a liberal majority so that made it perfectly ok to do as a "conservative" Governor.

427
04-12-2012, 23:21
Are you voting for a progressive from massachusetts? Yes or no?

I will vote for the GOP nominee.

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:24
I will vote for the GOP nominee.

Translation: "I would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was on the ticket as the GOP nominee"

427
04-12-2012, 23:26
That seems a bit trivial compared to voting for a guy who pioneered what is now known as Obamacare and signed a PERMANENT assault weapons ban into law don't ya think?

I want BO out of office. He's acting like a dictator and doing what ever he wants now! Given what he's done so far, what will he do when he doesn't have to worry about re-election?

Are you OK with that?

I'm not.

RCP
04-12-2012, 23:26
Heck Nancy Pelosi might be at the rate were going. She can just blow off her past by saying she was representing the people who elected her in her District and that will make everything ok.

427
04-12-2012, 23:28
Translation: "I would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was on the ticket as the GOP nominee"

That's the best comeback you have?

I'd vote for Paul if he'd get the nomination.

JBnTX
04-12-2012, 23:33
So whats the best way to predict future behavior? :whistling:


With politicians, I don't think you can with any certainty.
There's just too many unknown variables and unknown future events that could influence their behavior.

But between Obama and Romney, I'll take Romney any day.

snerd
04-13-2012, 00:02
I don't need a "perfect" candidate, just a conservative one. Has anyone seen one anywhere?

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 00:08
That's the best comeback you have?

I'd vote for Paul if he'd get the nomination.

That is the point. There are a lot of Paul supporters that will not vote for Romney when he gets the nomination. Paul doesn't lose Romney voters. Romney loses Paul voters.

G19G20
04-13-2012, 00:15
Romney's not even half way to the nomination and the biggest states in the country haven't even voted in a primary, yet there's threads like this? Turn off the tv.

427
04-13-2012, 00:17
That is the point. There are a lot of Paul supporters that will not vote for Romney when he gets the nomination. Paul doesn't lose Romney voters. Romney loses Paul voters.

Paul or nothing, I get it. Elections have consequences.

427
04-13-2012, 00:22
Romney's not even half way to the nomination and the biggest states in the country haven't even voted in a primary, yet there's threads like this? Turn off the tv.

I thought you lectured me on how primaries, are "beauty contests," as you called them, didn't matter. Now they do? Do they or don't they?

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 00:34
Paul or nothing, I get it. Elections have consequences.

They sure do. You must not be familiar with my posts if you think I am a Paul or nothing type.

427
04-13-2012, 00:37
They sure do. You must not be familiar with my posts if you think I am a Paul or nothing type.

I didn't say you were/weren't a Paul or nothing, supporter, ect., I was simply responding to the point you made. :wavey:

chickenwing
04-13-2012, 02:22
I'm not going to rationalize a reason to vote for Mitt. I simply will not vote for him, for the same reason I will not vote for Barry, both adhere to a big centralized government philosophy.

There is no contrast in that respect. Both supported the bailouts, state run healthcare, and don't have favorable views on the 2A.

I guess I should cross my fingers and hope he is just a political creature that goes with whatever populist movement that gives him a good chance to have more power? No thanks.

JBnTX
04-13-2012, 06:46
I'm not going to rationalize a reason to vote for Mitt. I simply will not vote for him, for the same reason I will not vote for Barry, both adhere to a big centralized government philosophy. No thanks.


If you don't vote, then it doesn't matter what you think.

Maybe it's a good thing that people like you and single issue voters don't vote.

Neither one has the proper understanding of politics that would allow
them to make an informed choice.

Yep, just stay home and keep your fingers crossed that everything works out OK.

amorican88
04-13-2012, 06:57
224475:rofl:

evlbruce
04-13-2012, 07:45
The case has not been made that 8 years of Mittens would be better than riding out another four of 0. To the contrary; Mittens is categorically when not in step he is in spirit with the current President.

RC-RAMIE
04-13-2012, 08:16
The case has not been made that 8 years of Mittens would be better than riding out another four of 0. To the contrary; Mittens is categorically when not in step he is in spirit with the current President.

Also if we support Mitt and he goes 2 term what will they try to pass off as Conservative next time? Obama (R) 2020?

frank4570
04-13-2012, 08:42
Translation: "I would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was on the ticket as the GOP nominee"

If she stays alive long enough, she will BE the GOP nominee.

Brucev
04-13-2012, 09:57
Re: OP. Get over it. Politics is not the ideal. It is the practical. Dreamers need to go elsewhere. From the American Revolution forward, reality has been the construct of those who understand and accept that. At times it has been hard to accept. Now is no different. A candidate of the quality of Reagan would have been much preferred by one and all. Reality is that no one of that caliber is anywhere available. What counts in Nov. 2012 is winning. It is that plain and simple. Winning is what count. Because those who win will control the confirmation of supreme court nominees. If the squatter survives, he will appoint another left-wing liberal demokrat party hack to the sc. And if conservatives and republicans are smart, and if they win the senate, they will be able to stand in the way of the squatter bastardizing the sc into a tool to advance his marxist agenda. Winning in Nov. 2012 is what counts. Romney is the only candidate with any real chance of winning sufficient electoral college support to take the white house. It is that simple. We don't have to like it. We can work to put enough conservative senators and congressmen in place so that they can drive Romney like a truck to carry the conservative political and social agenda. Otherwise, they will stand by the side of the road and watch as the squatter and his chicago crew ride by on their way to the offices from which they will act to destroy this nation.

Paul7
04-13-2012, 10:07
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:

Obama will be glad to hear that.

JK-linux
04-13-2012, 10:10
.....

frank4570
04-13-2012, 10:15
Someone was saying, if the NRA were to base their endorsement on actual on the recorded actions the candidates have taken in public life, the NRA would have to rate Obama higher than Romney.

That would crack me up if the NRA got honest and endorsed Obama over Romney.

Paul7
04-13-2012, 10:15
Even the Democrats are laughing out loud today about Romney addressing the NRA. Someone was saying, if the NRA were to base their endorsement on actual on the recorded actions the candidates have taken in public life, the NRA would have to rate Obama higher than Romney. And actually, if you add in what these two candidates have said over the years, the NRA would probably have to recuse themselves from endorsing anyone for President this year. Etch-a-sketch is a useless elitist to anyone who supports RKBA. When Santorum quit the campaign, a lot of support left with him. I won't vote (D), even if it has a (R) sticker on it's head. He lost me when he said we need more H1B workers here to fix the economy. Enjoy the bed you made.

Do you think Obama's or Romney's SCOTUS appointees will be friendlier to gun rights?

I only hope there are as many stupid Democrats who don't vote for Obama because he isn't perfect to them.

evlbruce
04-13-2012, 10:20
Do you think Obama's or Romney's SCOTUS appointees will be friendlier to gun rights?
:dunno:

Good question, I don't know either.

JK-linux
04-13-2012, 10:36
.....

callihan_44
04-13-2012, 11:11
the way I look at this situation is if romney wins, then acts like a democrat THEN maybe people in the republican party will wake up and either fix it or create a third party strong enough to win an election in the future...right now its marx vs dem light, I know what im voting for

G19G20
04-13-2012, 11:14
I thought you lectured me on how primaries, are "beauty contests," as you called them, didn't matter. Now they do? Do they or don't they?

They don't matter to how a nominee is actually decided but they're still part of the process. The election season isn't over yet, but people are acting like it is. There's plenty of states that haven't had a single vote yet, beauty contests included.

4 more of Obama will actually keep the GOP on it's toes and at least somewhat fighting instead of just settling into the liberal-lite role that Romney surely would bring. We saw how quickly the party can be herded in a bad direction after GWB won in 2000 on a non-intervention foreign policy platform. Suddenly non-intervention is laughed at. Boiling frog analogy comes to mind.

Paul7
04-13-2012, 12:45
That's a tough one to call. I'd guess they'd be about the same if one looks at their ideology. I'm guessing Etch-a-sketch would make an appointment based on what demographic he thinks he could score new voters with. Since he already has a lock on the Republican Party vote, by virtue of not officially being a (D), I'd say it's a toss up. He'd stand to gain more support from the middle and Left if he appointed a Liberal Justice since the Republicans have apparently no choice but to support him. It's not like the (R)'s vote him out after 4 years, if he won in November, even with a crappy SCOTUS appointment. If he's elected, there will be no internal challenges from anyone with an (R) attached to them unless he goes pro-union, implements national Romneycare, reforms wall street, doesn't bail out banks, or messes with ALEC money.

You really think Romney would nominate Kagan or Sotomayor? Then why is Judge Robert Bork Romney's legal adviser? Do you know something he doesn't?

frank4570
04-13-2012, 13:04
You really think Romney would nominate Kagan or Sotomayor? Then why is Judge Robert Bork Romney's legal adviser? Do you know something he doesn't?

This really is an important sticking point. And although the president doesn't actually rule the country all by himself, he does bring with him a lot of government people who tend to be like him.

I am not really educated on supreme court stuff.
How often does a president put somebody on the court that surprises the members of his OWN party? Does that happen?

JK-linux
04-13-2012, 13:25
.....

tslex
04-13-2012, 13:45
Yes politics is the art of the possible, at least according to Otto Von Bismarck.

But there are limits to my pragmatism, ideals I won't compromise. A vote for Romney would be a bridge too far for me.

[That said, pragmatically speaking, I am by no means convinced that four more years of President Obama would be worse in the long run than eight years of President Romney. And I don't think anyone comparing their characters and records can make a definitive conclusion. For example, if you think Judge Bork is a "conservative," you need to read what the man has written and look at how he's ruled. If liberty is, in your mind, the principle conservative value, and if you think government's first job is to protect -- or at least not intrude upon -- liberty, you may find Bork more than a little frightening.]

Bottom line for me is that my vote is too precious to cast for someone I don't really want to have the job.

JBnTX
04-13-2012, 13:51
Bottom line for me is that my vote is too precious to cast for someone I don't really want to have the job.


A vote not cast is a worthless and ineffective vote, not a precious vote.

America's future isn't determined by those who don't vote,
it's determined by those who do.

chickenwing
04-13-2012, 14:04
If you don't vote, then it doesn't matter what you think.

Maybe it's a good thing that people like you and single issue voters don't vote.

Neither one has the proper understanding of politics that would allow
them to make an informed choice.

Yep, just stay home and keep your fingers crossed that everything works out OK.

Did I state I wasn't going to vote? My opinion matters as much as yours, which on GT counts for zilch.

What kind of people am I? Do tell. After reading your posts, I'm positive I have a better grasp on economics and politics.

Coming from one as politically confused as you, I'll take that as a complement.

I'm not going to stay home, nor am I going waste any money or energy other then some posts on GT if my choice is between two progressive liberals.

I will vote according to who best represents the philosophy I think is best for the country and earns my consent to be governed by. Which is not what Mitt or Barry are selling.


Nice way to pick a line in my post, take it out of context and ignore the totality of my whole post. A post which you failed to even address with a clear argument.


Let me run it by you again.

I'm not going to rationalize a reason to vote for Mitt. I simply will not vote for him, for the same reason I will not vote for Barry, both adhere to a big centralized government philosophy.

There is no contrast in that respect. Both supported the bailouts, state run healthcare, and don't have favorable views on the 2A.

I guess I should cross my fingers and hope he is just a political creature that goes with whatever populist movement that gives him a good chance to have more power? No thanks.

chickenwing
04-13-2012, 14:06
........

Ruble Noon
04-13-2012, 15:33
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:

Neither am I. :wavey:

Ruble Noon
04-13-2012, 15:36
A vote not cast is a worthless and ineffective vote, not a precious vote.

America's future isn't determined by those who don't vote,
it's determined by those who do.

America has some retarded voters.

Bren
04-13-2012, 15:47
We vote for him this year because he is so much better than Obama. He is kind of an insult to the constitution, particularly the 2nd amendment, but we have to be realists.
In a few years we will vote for Obama, or rather somebody like him, because he is so much better than the other guy.
Good for us. We're awesome.

You about summed it up. Romney sucks, btu I'll vote for him because a child can see that every vote cast, or not cast, benefits either Romney or Obama - nobody else. I'll chooser the lesser of evils because everything else is a choice for the greater of evils (and that is true, not matter which one you think is the lesser or the greater).

In the end, I won't be surprised if Obama wins on the votes of those Republicans who stayed home because they don't like him and those conservatives who voted third party to make a point and all those liberals and minorities who only care about his race.

Gunnut 45/454
04-13-2012, 15:49
Well as we see and what was predicted - the RP supprters are going third party! Well thanks for playing and remember next GOP primary season stay the **** home we don't want any part of the Liberterian BS! Good luck trying to get any air time back to the shadows where you belong! The RNC got suckered this year and like the elephant we are not going to forget! By!:steamed:

Ruble Noon
04-13-2012, 16:08
Well as we see and what was predicted - the RP supprters are going third party! Well thanks for playing and remember next GOP primary season stay the **** home we don't want any part of the Liberterian BS! Good luck trying to get any air time back to the shadows where you belong! The RNC got suckered this year and like the elephant we are not going to forget! By!:steamed:


Well alrighty then. We will just stay home with a clear conscience while you guys vote for the continued destruction of the USA.

If you think the RNC got suckered you need to take that train of thought back to the station because the RNC suckered you. Ask yourself why the RNC has pushed the same candidate that the leftwing media has been pushing.

G-19
04-13-2012, 16:23
Translation: "I would vote for Nancy Pelosi if she was on the ticket as the GOP nominee"

Translation of this translation: boo hoo Paul did not get nominated, so now I must pout.

Gary W Trott
04-13-2012, 16:49
With politicians, I don't think you can [predict future behavior] with any certainty.
There's just too many unknown variables and unknown future events that could influence their behavior.
What variable can you think of that would make a person who normally would oppose gun control laws change his or her mind and support outlawing certain semi-automatic firearms just because of their design?

Mass10mm
04-13-2012, 18:21
I'm not voting for Romney. I've seen what he did in Massachusetts. The only honorable action for Conservatives this election is to stay at home. Just wait until '16. The Republicans are sure to nominate a true Conservative then.

frank4570
04-13-2012, 18:58
Well, one of the biggest problems we have right now, is the specter of socialized medicine taking over the United States of america. At LEAST we can rest easier knowing that Romney the Republican will fight that tooth and nail.

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 19:08
...Maybe it's a good thing that people like you and single issue voters don't vote...

Single issue? If I only had a single issue with him I could consider voting for him.

...who voted third party to make a point...

For me it's not about making a point. It's about living with my conscious.

coastal4974
04-13-2012, 19:24
If my choice is between a George Bush liberal or a Karl Marx radical, I’ll have to vote for the liberal.

This country has drifted too far left to vote for someone that will solve all our problems in one election. It took the Marxists decades to take over as much as they have in this country, thinking you’re going for find and get elected a true conservative is nothing more than an fairy tail. The left has been indoctrinating Americans and feeding them pie for too long to stop it all at once.

The only way to take this country back is the same way it was taken from us. A little at a time. Your dream of a second revolution is just that, a dream.

There are always people who don’t get their way in an election. The difference is the Marxists never give up and are willing to take an inch when they can’t get a foot. Conservatives are stupid, they want it all now or they go home mad and don’t wanna play anymore. The Marxists count on it.

Stubudd
04-13-2012, 19:25
I'm not voting for Romney. I've seen what he did in Massachusetts. The only honorable action for Conservatives this election is to stay at home. Just wait until '16. The Republicans are sure to nominate a true Conservative then.

Well, one of the biggest problems we have right now, is the specter of socialized medicine taking over the United States of america. At LEAST we can rest easier knowing that Romney the Republican will fight that tooth and nail.

:rofl:

JK-linux
04-13-2012, 19:26
.....

RCP
04-13-2012, 21:18
Translation of this translation: boo hoo Paul did not get nominated, so now I must pout.

Only ones pouting are the "conservatives" who are upset that more people like me won't be swayed to vote for their Liberal nominee.:wavey:

Chronos
04-13-2012, 21:39
Voting for POTUS in 2012 is about like "casting your vote" for Mafia Don. The Don gets a good laugh out of it, and all that you actually accomplish is to condition your brain to take psychological responsibility for your own abuse.

These people have zero legitimacy to initiate violence on you. Stop pretending they do, and wake the **** up.

Paul7
04-13-2012, 21:41
Birds of a feather I guess... Bork is the guy who doesn't support gun control, yet states openly that he believes that 2A only guarantees the right to participate in a government maintained militia and used the old "Teflon bullets" meme to refer to the NRA as a negative influence, right? He has specifically stated that he believes "that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation", rather than existing in unbridled form unless specifically and explicitly curtailed by law. Isn't he also the guy who wants Congress to be able to over-rule SCOTUS decisions? Maybe he's an Obama adviser as well? Thanks for another reason to not vote for Romney. I had no idea Bork was his legal conscience, though it does explain quite a bit.
So, to your question, would Romney go for Kagan or Sotomeyer? Who knows? Congress did and he's been pretty well aligned with more of what the last 4 years of Congress has been about than I like. Maybe he'll nominate people equally as bad, but in different ways? Maybe a Bork protege?

Then you and the late Ted Kennedy agree on Bork. Nice......

This is what Romney has said on the subject:

"I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs. They’re people who believe that the Constitution is what they’re to follow, not what they’re to depart from; people who do not believe that legislation from the bench is the responsibility or authority of being on the bench. I respect legal scholars of all backgrounds, but those who are going to be on the bench, if I were lucky enough to appoint them, would be people who believe their job is to follow the law and follow the Constitution."

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 22:10
...I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs...

Lets just hope they don't sell us out on cases like Kelo as Stevens, Kennedy and Souter did. All appointed by Republicans by the way. A Romney win doesn't mean we will get SCJ's that will actually rule in favor of conservatism.

Or am I missing how the Kelo decision was just and inline with conservative principles?

evlbruce
04-13-2012, 22:41
I am not really educated on supreme court stuff.
How often does a president put somebody on the court that surprises the members of his OWN party? Does that happen?
Every Republican president since FDR has done so. Bush II nominated the stuttering train wreck Harriet Meirs, Bush I appointed Souter a big government liberal, Reagan appointed two wavering moderates in Kennedy and O'Conner, Ford appointed Stevens who was an outright progressive, etc.

Going back at least as far as Ike, the Republican history of appointments is dreadful.

snerd
04-14-2012, 00:06
http://www.frumforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Romneycare.jpg

427
04-14-2012, 01:08
They don't matter to how a nominee is actually decided but they're still part of the process. The election season isn't over yet, but people are acting like it is. There's plenty of states that haven't had a single vote yet, beauty contests included.

4 more of Obama will actually keep the GOP on it's toes and at least somewhat fighting instead of just settling into the liberal-lite role that Romney surely would bring. We saw how quickly the party can be herded in a bad direction after GWB won in 2000 on a non-intervention foreign policy platform. Suddenly non-intervention is laughed at. Boiling frog analogy comes to mind.

We have another Paul supporter who's OK with four more years of Obama? Seems to be a trend. How many is that?

stevelyn
04-14-2012, 01:16
All Hail Romney Caesar. :puking:

Blast
04-14-2012, 02:06
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rd7wdSjpR7k/TZ8rNRHA4RI/AAAAAAAAHQM/iZHVpX-K0iA/s640/326071850_d2d2fe43bf.jpg

RCP
04-14-2012, 02:24
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rd7wdSjpR7k/TZ8rNRHA4RI/AAAAAAAAHQM/iZHVpX-K0iA/s640/326071850_d2d2fe43bf.jpg

Electing Romney is no strategy either

barbedwiresmile
04-14-2012, 06:37
This time it'll be different.

Ruble Noon
04-14-2012, 07:08
This time it'll be different.

:rofl:

DIXIE DUCK
04-14-2012, 12:49
I'm not voting for Romney or Obama.

Restless28
04-14-2012, 12:57
We have another Paul supporter who's OK with four more years of Obama? Seems to be a trend. How many is that?

Not me. I'm a Paul fan, but I'm not a fool either. I'll vote for my dog if she were the GOP nominee.

Arc Angel
04-14-2012, 13:05
I've thought a lot about this question. No matter how I spin it, Romney keeps coming out as, 'the other Obama'. Right now, Mitt's playing, 'suck up'; but, let's face facts, him and the Second Amendment just can't seem to get along; AND, if Mitt can't get along with the Second Amendment then the rest of the Constitution can't be far behind. If I were a rich man I swear I'd be typing this post from Nicaragua or Belize. I really would.

DIXIE DUCK
04-14-2012, 13:07
Not me. I'm a Paul fan, but I'm not a fool either. I'll vote for my dog if she were the GOP nominee.

That is the problem.

G-19
04-14-2012, 13:07
America has some retarded voters.

Another RP supporter showing his true colors. If you don't vote the way he thinks you should then you must be retarded. Keep it up fellas, your degrading comments guarantee his loss.

It is funny to sit back and watch RP supporters destroy any chance of their guy getting nominated. Their comments are so out there that they would turn most fence riders away from Paul. I know that it did for me. I read a lot of their posts before I even started posting in GTPI awhile back. I was really undecided on who I liked, and came here to see want people were saying about the candidates. The way the RP supporters were so derogatory to others that did not follow their line of thinking, and their elitist attitude made me instantly not like Paul. Like it or not a politician gets labeled by their base.

His own supporters have hurt his chances more than any smear campaign ever could have.

Slug71
04-14-2012, 13:09
I wont vote for Mittens. I'd rather not vote at all...

Ruble Noon
04-14-2012, 13:55
Another RP supporter showing his true colors. If you don't vote the way he thinks you should then you must be retarded. Keep it up fellas, your degrading comments guarantee his loss.

It is funny to sit back and watch RP supporters destroy any chance of their guy getting nominated. Their comments are so out there that they would turn most fence riders away from Paul. I know that it did for me. I read a lot of their posts before I even started posting in GTPI awhile back. I was really undecided on who I liked, and came here to see want people were saying about the candidates. The way the RP supporters were so derogatory to others that did not follow their line of thinking, and their elitist attitude made me instantly not like Paul. Like it or not a politician gets labeled by their base.

His own supporters have hurt his chances more than any smear campaign ever could have.

I was going to ask if you didn't think that obama voters fit into my statement then I realized that you probably are one.

Oh, and as far as being derogatory, you really shouldn't cast stones with your posting history.

Brucev
04-14-2012, 14:10
Not me. I'm a Paul fan, but I'm not a fool either. I'll vote for my dog if she were the GOP nominee.

Right! Idealism not withstanding, the only way to win is to win where you can and not lose just because you can't get everything you want. The squatter and his fellow domestic terrorists are a clear and present danger to the United States. Romney is the only option that has a realistic opportunity to keep the squatter and his crew from having another four years to advance their toxic marxist agenda that is such a real threat to our nation. Vote Republican in the house, senate and white house. Next election cycle, seek to put more conservatives into office at each level. And, maybe by that time a better Conservative will be available for a run at the white house... a Conservatives that is not so far to the extreme that he is unelectable in a national contest. But by all means in Nov. 2012, vote Republican. The demokrats are depending on and counting on dissatisfied conservatives and republicans to stay home and not vote. That's the only way they can win.

G-19
04-14-2012, 16:01
I was going to ask if you didn't think that obama voters fit into my statement then I realized that you probably are one.

Oh, and as far as being derogatory, you really shouldn't cast stones with your posting history.

Yeah, I admit I have threw some out there, but most were in response to RP supporter comments.

As far as supporting BHO, you have no idea how I vote. I was supporting Santorum, but will now support Romney.

Paul7
04-14-2012, 17:01
Lets just hope they don't sell us out on cases like Kelo as Stevens, Kennedy and Souter did. All appointed by Republicans by the way. A Romney win doesn't mean we will get SCJ's that will actually rule in favor of conservatism.

Or am I missing how the Kelo decision was just and inline with conservative principles?

A Romney win doesn't guarantee great picks like the ones he admires (Alito, Roberts), but an Obama win guarantees more Kagans and Sotomayors, in which case you can kiss your gun rights goodbye.

I notice most of the 'too pure to vote for Romney' crowd are from Texas, did you all ever stop to think the rest of the country isn't as conservative as your state? I wish it was, but it isn't. Ever been to Oregon, California, or the Northeast? If you're waiting for a Texas-quality conservative to be nominated, you'll probably never vote again. Romney is clearly the rightward-most viable candidate this go-around.

frank4570
04-14-2012, 18:11
Every Republican president since FDR has done so.

Well, that would seem to be a negative trend, wouldn't it?

So, if the only real difference between Obama and Romney is who they put on the supreme court. And every republican president has burned us on that one.........

Gunnut 45/454
04-14-2012, 21:26
Ruble Noon
Well I don't see or here RP saying he's going to go out a stump for Mit? So what did he bring to the party? ZERO! You all just stand on the sideline as always. You've shown you will do nothing to help our country. All you RP supporters are saying noway I'm for Mit. So what is your solution? Since there is no way RP will get the White House what are you all going to do just sit at home and whine. Or will you all show your true colors and vote for Obama. I mean really he is closer to your idiolgy then the GOP.:whistling:

Ruble Noon
04-14-2012, 21:57
Ruble Noon
Well I don't see or here RP saying he's going to go out a stump for Mit? So what did he bring to the party? ZERO! You all just stand on the sideline as always. You've shown you will do nothing to help our country. All you RP supporters are saying noway I'm for Mit. So what is your solution? Since there is no way RP will get the White House what are you all going to do just sit at home and whine. Or will you all show your true colors and vote for Obama. I mean really he is closer to your idiolgy then the GOP.:whistling:

Let's examine that. I am for restoring and preserving our constitution, for smaller government, less bureaucracy, less intrusion into peoples lives, way less spending, reigning in the FED and getting our money sound once again. I'm for ceasing the needless wars with the stupid ROE's that put our men and women in danger. How is that like obama? Will Romney give me any of this? I think not.
But you go ahead and vote for the guy that was chosen for you by the leftwing, the guy that bans guns and started socialized medicine in Massachusetts. Go ahead and see how that works out for ya.

aspartz
04-14-2012, 21:58
Then what's the best solution?
Where's that perfect candidate?
The perfect candidate is one who would stand up and say: The economy is broken. Until we fix that, I will not submit, support nor sign any legislation that is targeted at improving the moral fiber of the nation. All legislation that increases freedom I will sign immediately.
-or- My religion is mine and mine alone. I will undertake no effort to impose my morals on another citizen. If there is no direct victim, there should be no law.
ARS

frank4570
04-14-2012, 22:11
Where's that perfect candidate?

Real answer.
If we had a candidate who would do what needed to be done, Americans would overwhelmingly NOT vote for him. Not the people who like free stuff, and not the people who want us to be easily managed.
Pepsi ,and Rev Al sharpton, and Homeland security would all work to make him go away.

JK-linux
04-14-2012, 22:24
.....

Glock30Eric
04-15-2012, 05:24
Ruble Noon
Well I don't see or here RP saying he's going to go out a stump for Mit? So what did he bring to the party? ZERO! You all just stand on the sideline as always. You've shown you will do nothing to help our country. All you RP supporters are saying noway I'm for Mit. So what is your solution? Since there is no way RP will get the White House what are you all going to do just sit at home and whine. Or will you all show your true colors and vote for Obama. I mean really he is closer to your idiolgy then the GOP.:whistling:

No way Romney will take WH so what's your point? Hahahahahahaha! That was the best comment ever.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
04-15-2012, 07:11
ABR in the primary, ABO in the general.

Seems like a pretty good plan. Considering it's only one of about 100 million or so votes that will be cast, not too big a deal after all.

Kingarthurhk
04-15-2012, 07:46
Thats not true because voting for Mitt Romney will not make any difference of any kind or change anything. You might think it will but it won't. :wavey:

A vote against him is a vote for Obama. I am seeing adaptation in action. Paulbots are adapting to Peroitbots. That worked out pretty well for Clinton.

G-19
04-15-2012, 07:49
I truly believe that Paul's and his supporter's agenda was to try and divide the GOP, to make BHO's run so much easier. They knew Paul never stood a chance, so they set out on this divide and conquer campaign.

They claim that they are only worried about the economy, but are willing to not vote at all or vote for Obama if their guy don't get in. Ensuring a Dem. victory. If they were in the least worried about the economy they would support the GOP candidate, he may not be perfect but still better than BHO.

By being willing to not vote or vote for BHO they are showing their true colors.

Slug71
04-15-2012, 10:58
A vote against him is a vote for Obama. I am seeing adaptation in action. Paulbots are adapting to Peroitbots. That worked out pretty well for Clinton.

I truly believe that Paul's and his supporter's agenda was to try and divide the GOP, to make BHO's run so much easier. They knew Paul never stood a chance, so they set out on this divide and conquer campaign.

They claim that they are only worried about the economy, but are willing to not vote at all or vote for Obama if their guy don't get in. Ensuring a Dem. victory. If they were in the least worried about the economy they would support the GOP candidate, he may not be perfect but still better than BHO.

By being willing to not vote or vote for BHO they are showing their true colors.

Oh BS! Because we wont vote for mittens isnt a vote for BHO. I simply just wont vote for mittens. I would rather not vote at all. The guy is a moron. He will do more damage than BHO has. When my kids ask me if i voted for the people that destroyed this country i can proudly say "No". I will teach them to vote for the candidates based on research they have done. The democrat vs republican thing has become a joke and buying into it makes you ignorant. The democrats and republicans know you'll vote for no matter who they give you and you guys have just proven this! Where is your pride? Simply voting for anyone because they represent xxxx party is just going to give more of the same. When in recent history has either of these two party's gone back and fixed what a previous administration has done wrong? NEVER!! It just gets worse! My vote for RP or not at all, is my stand to say "enough is enough". I will not feed from their 'left overs'.

Ruble Noon
04-15-2012, 11:03
I truly believe that Paul's and his supporter's agenda was to try and divide the GOP, to make BHO's run so much easier. They knew Paul never stood a chance, so they set out on this divide and conquer campaign.

They claim that they are only worried about the economy, but are willing to not vote at all or vote for Obama if their guy don't get in. Ensuring a Dem. victory. If they were in the least worried about the economy they would support the GOP candidate, he may not be perfect but still better than BHO.

By being willing to not vote or vote for BHO they are showing their true colors.

I think it's time to step away from the bong. :smoking:

The Machinist
04-15-2012, 11:25
If they were in the least worried about the economy they would support the GOP candidate, he may not be perfect but still better than BHO.
LOL! Do you actually believe Romney's going to do jack **** about our spending and debt? :rofl:

G-19
04-15-2012, 11:47
I think it's time to step away from the bong. :smoking:

That would not be me that needs to step away, Paul is the one that supports pot.

F350
04-15-2012, 12:16
I will not vote for Mittens!

I WILL vote against Obummer with the most likely candidate to win.

G29Reload
04-15-2012, 12:58
Worth the re-post here:

Oh no, great times are ahead. The conservatives are going to elect a progressive liberal to restore conservatism.

Too cute by half.

The reason why you can be wrong is, simply by undoing anything BHO did, or concentrating on the economy by disabling Obama care and getting government out of the way and going opposite Obama the way Romney's populist bent will likely take him could result in a massive economic boom. If he can get the budgeting baseline back to 2007/8, smack the EPA in the head with a 2x4, take the what-if terror of the unknowns out from over the head of business,

-unemployment will end its high numbers
-business will no longer be afraid to unlimber sidelined cash for new ventures
-the raft of people going back to work will up the influx of tax revenue to start reducing the debt

Just concentrating on money and economy will solve a ton of ills.

Why can it be massive?

Pent-up Demand

This has the potential to be huge.

Imagine if you will:

1. The SCOTUS throws out O-care
2. Romney gets in, and actually keeps his word, and helps complete the disassembly of O-care, all the remaining vestiges of it, defunds the 17000 IRS agents, etc.
3. Business, no longer fearing the unknown, and knowing a business man is running the show gets hope.
4. Energy is unleashed. We start drilling everywhere, the permits are approved. We stop squandering money on windfarms and bottled unicorn farts or whatever the idiot at the EPA is mandating now.
5. Idiot regulations are reversed and discarded.

The concept of pent up demand has 2 iterations.

One, you've seen in the current day. Business and the economy, people's personal spending is suppressed. No one has scads of cash, so they cut back on spending. They don't get a new car every few years, it JUST ISN'T THERE.

But, even in hard times like Obama has given us, if you have a car, sometimes it just breaks or become uneconomical to run, so you have to sacrifice and get a new one, even though its a tough row to hoe. You need to get to work or keep looking for a job…you don't have any choice. The stove breaks and you HAVE to get one.

This level of pent-up demand, the fact that some unusual spending takes place when ordinarily you wouldn't, is responsible for some jumps in the economic numbers you sometimes hear reported, even with the current idiot and bad times at the helm. THey just aggregate in a certain time frame and translate to what looks like a slightly improving economy. The kind of monthly report that makes the WH issue a press release that says , SEE, we're making it better!

But they're not. Some things will just happen, people will still do what they have to.

The kind of pent-up demand I'm talking about is the sea-change, massive, oh-my-god he's finally gone, now we don't have the axe over our head, lets open that factory, now I won't be ***-raped for hiring new employees, employment will surge, people will start eating out, hiring begets hiring and demand for stuff will just kick start the economy…basically a huge sigh of relief. 6-9 months later it shows up in the housing numbers, houses are sold, inventories decrease, prices start to rise and interest rates are raised from their unrealistic lows to keep the economy from overheating.

We're talking about 4 YEARS of backlog of hopes and dreams…when can I afford to go out and eat at a restaurant again, is the GREAT RECESSION finally over? Wait, WHAT? I'm HIRED? I GOT THE JOB?! Honey, we don't have to short sell the house, we can make the mortgage again!

It'll be like rebuilding after a hurricane has come thru. The Human Wrecking Ball will be …GONE.


Just getting .gov out of the way of the economy could be the life changer.

it will not take a "philosophy" one way or the other to fix things.

The problems are so elementary several people here, myself included would know what to do to fix things and I can describe it here:

NOTHING. JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Don't build a damn thing.

Just DESTROY.

Destroy O-care
Destroy Lisa Jackson at the EPA…FIRE HER.
DESTROY regulations.

Just disassemble the crap sandwich erected by the statists.

We don't need a President to fix this. We need a garbage man. Driving a huge dumpster. A crane and a bulldozer.

Clear the path. It would be so easy a sixth grader could do it.

Just anyone but the dogmatically driven, stubborn, head up his *** little spoiled brat intent on trying to build a cancer of a government to micromanage our lives.

Clear the crap out of the way. Flip the switch, CUT THE ROPE.

You don't have to tell everyone you voted for Romney. Make yourself feel better and say you voted against the idiot Obama.

And you'll get rid of him and his lawless, criminal AG to boot.

The math is really simple folks. We're here …EVERY DAMN ONE OF US…because we're distressed. Lets off the distress.

It really is that simple.

Kingarthurhk
04-15-2012, 14:20
Oh BS! Because we wont vote for mittens isnt a vote for BHO. I simply just wont vote for mittens. I would rather not vote at all. The guy is a moron. He will do more damage than BHO has. When my kids ask me if i voted for the people that destroyed this country i can proudly say "No". I will teach them to vote for the candidates based on research they have done. The democrat vs republican thing has become a joke and buying into it makes you ignorant. The democrats and republicans know you'll vote for no matter who they give you and you guys have just proven this! Where is your pride? Simply voting for anyone because they represent xxxx party is just going to give more of the same. When in recent history has either of these two party's gone back and fixed what a previous administration has done wrong? NEVER!! It just gets worse! My vote for RP or not at all, is my stand to say "enough is enough". I will not feed from their 'left overs'.

I am guessing you aren't old enough to remember how Peroit got Clinton elected? Any rate, when you have two contenders, much like my experience since the age of 18 a really long long time ago, you end up voting for the least worst candidate.

So, the field has boiled down to BHO or Romney. Those are our two realistic choices. I have always disliked McCain, but last time around I knew BHO was worse. So, I sucked it up and voted McCain.

The choice is ultimately yours. I would just say, if you don't remember recent history, or were too young, look it up. You might be suprised.

G-19
04-15-2012, 15:33
I am guessing you aren't old enough to remember how Peroit got Clinton elected? Any rate, when you have two contenders, much like my experience since the age of 18 a really long long time ago, you end up voting for the least worst candidate.

So, the field has boiled down to BHO or Romney. Those are our two realistic choices. I have always disliked McCain, but last time around I knew BHO was worse. So, I sucked it up and voted McCain.

The choice is ultimately yours. I would just say, if you don't remember recent history, or were too young, look it up. You might be suprised.

I really think that is the plan of the RP supporters. They talk a good game but when it comes down to it they put up someone unelectable, then spend all their time bashing Republicans. They want Obama to win. I remember one RP supporter posting that he would vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson.

Glock30Eric
04-15-2012, 17:35
I really think that is the plan of the RP supporters. They talk a good game but when it comes down to it they put up someone unelectable, then spend all their time bashing Republicans. They want Obama to win. I remember one RP supporter posting that he would vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson.

A vote for Romney is like teaching GOP to not elect a lukewarm republican candidate again which it brought us Obama for both terms. It's no different if I vote Obama to teach GOP a lesson.

Republican is long gone.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

BORNGEARHEAD
04-15-2012, 18:58
Mittens ain't fixin shiat! He's gonna continue the downward spiral that is our collapse. It's just a simple money grab for rich douch ebags. This country is getting gutted from within. Sad really. :(

coastal4974
04-15-2012, 19:22
Let's examine that. I am for restoring and preserving our constitution, for smaller government, less bureaucracy, less intrusion into peoples lives, way less spending, reigning in the FED and getting our money sound once again. I'm for ceasing the needless wars with the stupid ROE's that put our men and women in danger. How is that like obama? Will Romney give me any of this? I think not.
But you go ahead and vote for the guy that was chosen for you by the leftwing, the guy that bans guns and started socialized medicine in Massachusetts. Go ahead and see how that works out for ya.


I agree and want all that too but I don't understand how you get that by voting for Obama.

You're not going to get that with Romney but there will be no country left to save if the Obama gets a few more years.

coastal4974
04-15-2012, 19:25
I really think that is the plan of the RP supporters. They talk a good game but when it comes down to it they put up someone unelectable, then spend all their time bashing Republicans. They want Obama to win. I remember one RP supporter posting that he would vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson.


I think you’re right. I think there are people who think that voting for Obama will bring some cool new revolution that they can be part of. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Ruble Noon
04-15-2012, 19:44
I agree and want all that too but I don't understand how you get that by voting for Obama.

You're not going to get that with Romney but there will be no country left to save if the Obama gets a few more years.

I'm not voting for obama.

RCP
04-15-2012, 19:46
I agree and want all that too but I don't understand how you get that by voting for Obama.

You're not going to get that with Romney but there will be no country left to save if the Obama gets a few more years.

I think that's a lil dramatic but let's say for arguments sake your right. That might be what it takes to wake up enough people to actually make a drastic change in their thinking which is what is needed to "save this country". Electing someone who might (although I doubt it) simply slow down the destruction of our country does nothing but lull people into a false sense of security and then we will be right back to where we are right now it will simply be 2 different candidates we will arguing over which one is going to do the least amount of damage. I love this country but perhaps it's time for a little tough love. That doesn't mean I'm going to or want Obama to win it just means that I refuse to support Romney either because BOTH candidates are simply more of the same so it makes no difference to me which of those crap sandwiches y'all wanna eat, I'll pass. I AM going to support the candidate or party that I believe is going to make a positive difference in our country and I'm confident that eventually the rest of y'all will come around if for no other reason than eventually you will have no other choice.

ponders
04-15-2012, 19:59
either way with mit romney or the big obummer, they are going to wipe their ***** with the COTUS


SECOND AMENDMENT FIRST,

the rest will follow

we are so screwed

and does the popular vote even count anymore??? or do the electoral vote people just going to have their way and go against the popular vote?

its all rigged anyway whats the use?:steamed::steamed::steamed::steamed::steamed::steamed:

juggy4711
04-15-2012, 20:56
I'm not voting for obama.

Me neither.

...That might be what it takes to wake up enough people to actually make a drastic change in their thinking which is what is needed to "save this country". Electing someone who might (although I doubt it) simply slow down the destruction of our country does nothing but lull people into a false sense of security and then we will be right back to where we are right now it will simply be 2 different candidates we will arguing over which one is going to do the least amount of damage. I love this country but perhaps it's time for a little tough love...

There was a time when I believed that also. The more I studied history and the writings of the Founders I realized we passed that point decades ago. It is already too late to change course. The only thing a RP victory would do is when things finally crumble, help remind some people why it happened.

But honestly even that would likely not be enough to reverse course after the system failure. Technology is a double edged sword and as Marx predicted would be the main catalyst of social, political and economic change. While it won't likely be an agricultural ordeal as he thought, it will still be. Once the collapse happens completely, technology may be at a point that those in charge will never again lose control; the vise will be closed and there will be no escape, no possible opposition to the all seeing eye.

RCP
04-15-2012, 22:55
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/4heins/romneyobama.jpg

RC-RAMIE
04-16-2012, 07:11
http://img.tapatalk.com/63c30c30-1a64-d7b2.jpg


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Woofie
04-16-2012, 08:05
I am guessing you aren't old enough to remember how Peroit got Clinton elected? Any rate, when you have two contenders, much like my experience since the age of 18 a really long long time ago, you end up voting for the least worst candidate.

So, the field has boiled down to BHO or Romney. Those are our two realistic choices. I have always disliked McCain, but last time around I knew BHO was worse. So, I sucked it up and voted McCain.

The choice is ultimately yours. I would just say, if you don't remember recent history, or were too young, look it up. You might be suprised.

Perot should have been a signal to the Republican party that the their potential voters were not happy with the candidate they offered. They didn't learn when Bush Jr. barely won the election in court when that should have been a slam dunk victory. They didn't figure it out when McCain got his butt handed to him by Obama last time.

Stop blaming the victim. It's the Republican Party's fault they lose elections by running weak, liberal candidates. They should stop trying to steal likely Deomcratic voters and start trying to win back conservatives.

RC-RAMIE
04-16-2012, 08:07
Perot should have been a signal to the Republican party that the their potential voters were not happy with the candidate they offered. They didn't learn when Bush Jr. barely won the election in court when that should have been a slam dunk victory. They didn't figure it out when McCain got his butt handed to him by Obama last time.

Stop blaming the victim. It's the Republican Party's fault they lose elections by running weak, liberal candidates. They should stop trying to steal likely Deomcratic voters and start trying to win back conservatives.

Its like blaming a football team loses on the fans not showing up, maybe they are not showing up because the team plays like crap.

Woofie
04-16-2012, 08:10
I really think that is the plan of the RP supporters. They talk a good game but when it comes down to it they put up someone unelectable, then spend all their time bashing Republicans. They want Obama to win. I remember one RP supporter posting that he would vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson.

You throw around this term "unelectable" like it has any meaning. I suppose you thought McCain was electable? How did that work out for you?

Now we're calling Romney electable. Does nobody else realize that Romney is the guy who lost to the guy who had to take Bush Jr's sloppy seconds?

We're bringing in the third string to fight an incumbent president.

Slug71
04-16-2012, 12:19
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/4heins/romneyobama.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/63c30c30-1a64-d7b2.jpg


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Yeahh Buddyy :wavey:

Bren
04-16-2012, 13:25
Perot should have been a signal to the Republican party that the their potential voters were not happy with the candidate they offered. They didn't learn when Bush Jr. barely won the election in court when that should have been a slam dunk victory. They didn't figure it out when McCain got his butt handed to him by Obama last time.

Stop blaming the victim. It's the Republican Party's fault they lose elections by running weak, liberal candidates. They should stop trying to steal likely Deomcratic voters and start trying to win back conservatives.

You are right and we need either a rebooted Republican party or a third party that can win elections.

However, the election is this year and we have neither and will have neither at election time, so it's al academic wishful thinking.

Brucev
04-16-2012, 13:41
[QUOTE=Bren;18853286]You are right and we need either a rebooted Republican party or a third party that can win elections. Ah the third party. It will work when the U.S. adopts a parliamentarian form of govt. But as long as the electoral college is based on winner takes all state "primaries," the group that best works the two-party system will win.

However, the election is this year and we have neither and will have neither at election time, so it's al academic wishful thinking. Agreed. Wishful thinking. Reality is that ours is the modern two-party system.

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 14:28
People who can't tell the difference between Obama and Romney…

are too dumb to be allowed to vote.




Romney flawed? You bet.

Does he hate his country and actively work for its demise? No.
Would he nominate another Sonja Sotomayor? No.
Would he recognize our unsustainable path and try and fix it? Yes.
Would he allow drilling permits to proceed? Yes.
Would he engage in class warfare? No.
Would he try and roll the budget baseline back? Yes.


Barack Hussein Obama has doubled the baseline, and calls any attempt to roll it back "too radical for the American People". With a straight face.

Would Romney do this? No.

The idiocy of saying the two candidates are identical is a breed of intellectual dishonesty, cognitive dissonance or stupid, so epic, it defies description.

Let me scale it for you, so you can get a better description of what its REALLY like.

Doctor to Patient: Ok, look. You have a case of Obama. Its a Stage 4 Malignant Cancer. You've got less than a year to live.

If we give you this drug, its called Romney, we may be able to save your life from this cancer, and you won't die…but you'll be left with a manageable Type II diabetes. But you WILL live. Otherwise, you're goin in the box. What would you like to do?

G-19
04-16-2012, 14:34
People who can't tell the difference between Obama and Romney…

are too dumb to be allowed to vote.




Romney flawed? You bet.

Does he hate his country and actively work for its demise? No.
Would he nominate another Sonja Sotomayor? No.
Would he recognize our unsustainable path and try and fix it? Yes.
Would he allow drilling permits to proceed? Yes.
Would he engage in class warfare? No.
Would he try and roll the budget baseline back? Yes.


Barack Hussein Obama has doubled the baseline, and calls any attempt to roll it back "too radical for the American People". With a straight face.

Would Romney do this? No.

The idiocy of saying the two candidates are identical is a breed of intellectual dishonesty, cognitive dissonance or stupid, so epic, it defies description.

Let me scale it for you, so you can get a better description of what its REALLY like.

Doctor to Patient: Ok, look. You have a case of Obama. Its a Stage 4 Malignant Cancer. You've got less than a year to live.

If we give you this drug, its called Romney, we may be able to save your life from this cancer, and you won't die…but you'll be left with a manageable Type II diabetes. But you WILL live. Otherwise, you're goin in the box. What would you like to do?

I agree with you on this. Now, watch out the insults are sure to start any time now.

aspartz
04-16-2012, 14:42
Romney flawed? You bet.

Does he hate his country and actively work for its demise? No.
Is he willing to admit that we made mistakes?
Would he nominate another Sonja Sotomayor? No.Would he nominate a fundamentalist who will attack Jefferson's wall of separation?
Would he nominate a statist who thinks the TSA is Constitutional?
Would he recognize our unsustainable path and try and fix it? Yes.Will he actually try to cut programs and the size of government and entitlements or will he continue the status quo?
Would he allow drilling permits to proceed? Yes.Will he repeal CAFE standards?
Will he eliminate E15 and other environmental nonsense?
Would he engage in class warfare? No.There needs to be some class warfare. Someone need to stand up for the 53%
Would he try and roll the budget baseline back? Yes.Will he simply move funds from programs he holds in disfavor to those that he does, leaving the tax level and overall budget the same?

ARS

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 14:59
Is he willing to admit that we made mistakes?

Obama? No, absolutely not. He's so full of his own hubris he might have even started believing his own lies.


Would he nominate a fundamentalist who will attack Jefferson's wall of separation?
Would he nominate a statist who thinks the TSA is Constitutional?
Will he actually try to cut programs and the size of government and entitlements or will he continue the status quo?
Will he repeal CAFE standards?
Will he eliminate E15 and other environmental nonsense?

You missed the point entirely, clearly not paying attention.

The difference lies in the questions I asked, stop obfuscating and changing the subject.


There needs to be some class warfare.

No, and WRONG. We don't need ANY class warfare. If you think we do, you're in Obama's camp. That's how he rolls and we've had enough. All stocked up here.

Someone need to stand up for the 53%

We need to elect someone who stands up for everyone, and stop the class warfare.

ARe you talking about the 53% who don't pay any taxes? They need to start paying some, and paying some back. The 47% that have been paying their share are tiring of it.

Everyone pays. No exceptions.


Will he simply move funds from programs he holds in disfavor to those that he does, leaving the tax level and overall budget the same?

ARS

Details.

He needs to roll back the baseline, undue the permanent stimulus that was supposed to be a one time deal and wrong at that.

Green70
04-16-2012, 15:55
There was a time when I believed that also. The more I studied history and the writings of the Founders I realized we passed that point decades ago. It is already too late to change course. The only thing a RP victory would do is when things finally crumble, help remind some people why it happened.

But honestly even that would likely not be enough to reverse course after the system failure. Technology is a double edged sword and as Marx predicted would be the main catalyst of social, political and economic change. While it won't likely be an agricultural ordeal as he thought, it will still be. Once the collapse happens completely, technology may be at a point that those in charge will never again lose control; the vise will be closed and there will be no escape, no possible opposition to the all seeing eye.

I hold the same view, unfortunately...

To think otherwise is thinking based on emotion rather than facts.

G19G20
04-16-2012, 16:03
Romney flawed? You bet.

Got that right.


Does he hate his country and actively work for its demise? No.

Says who exactly? And how does one quantify this into a tangible platform? How do you know Romney loves America more than Obama does?


Would he nominate another Sonja Sotomayor? No.

Says who exactly? He did govern the most liberal state in the country (and ran his campaign accordingly) so his conservative bonafides are seriously in question. He also signed an AWB, something Obama hasn't even done.


Would he recognize our unsustainable path and try and fix it? Yes.

Says who exactly? He left Mass with a huge budget deficit and engineered Romneycare. What in his track record says he would "fix" anything?


Would he allow drilling permits to proceed? Yes.

Says who exactly? What is his history on oil drilling legislation to back this up?


Would he engage in class warfare? No.

Says who exactly? Class warfare is such a vague term that it means anything to anyone. He's owned by Wall St (campaign donor info proves it) so it's just the other end of the classes. Obama also is owned by Wall St so no difference there.


Would he try and roll the budget baseline back? Yes.


Says who exactly? He ran up a deficit in Mass and never cut government spending there. What do you base this statement on?

"Doesn't hate his country" is a bizarre political platform to try to persuade voters with.


Barack Hussein Obama has doubled the baseline, and calls any attempt to roll it back "too radical for the American People". With a straight face.

Would Romney do this? No.

And what exactly makes you think Romney is any different? You're purely speculating. How can anyone ascribe any position whatsoever to flipflopper Romney?


The idiocy of saying the two candidates are identical is a breed of intellectual dishonesty, cognitive dissonance or stupid, so epic, it defies description.

Let me scale it for you, so you can get a better description of what its REALLY like.

Doctor to Patient: Ok, look. You have a case of Obama. Its a Stage 4 Malignant Cancer. You've got less than a year to live.

If we give you this drug, its called Romney, we may be able to save your life from this cancer, and you won't die…but you'll be left with a manageable Type II diabetes. But you WILL live. Otherwise, you're goin in the box. What would you like to do?

It's funny watching Republicans now try to convince THEMSELVES that Romney is somehow a better choice than Obama. What you forgot in your allegory is the last part where the patient dies because the drug failed test trial after test trial and the doctor ignored it and prescribed it anyway, resulting in the same end result to the patient. Death.

Romney and Obama both have anti-gun histories.

Romney and Obama both support government mandates on health care and insurance.

Romney and Obama both support continuing wars we can't afford.

Romney and Obama both support SOPA, NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, and every other rights stealing legislation Congress can come up with.

Romney and Obama both enjoy Wall St as main campaign donors and both support bailouts. I see a connection there, do you?

Romney and Obama both have shady, secretive histories and concerns over their religious choices.

Want more? I got a ton of them.

Now, between your post and mine which brings up tangible similarities (was: differences - typo) and which engages in pure speculation? :whistling:

aspartz
04-16-2012, 16:16
Obama? No, absolutely not. He's so full of his own hubris he might have even started believing his own lies.
No, will Rommney admit that we have made mistakes? Will he be have an Israel-centric foreign policy?
You missed the point entirely, clearly not paying attention.I have been paying attention, there are differences between the candidates. There is not much that makes one preferable to the other. Both have significant failings in viewpoint.
The difference lies in the questions I asked, stop obfuscating and changing the subject.Your questions show the difference, they also show the failings of both.
No, and WRONG. We don't need ANY class warfare. If you think we do, you're in Obama's camp. That's how he rolls and we've had enough. All stocked up here.

We need to elect someone who stands up for everyone, and stop the class warfare. How can someone stand up for everyone and still want to cut entitlements?
ARe you talking about the 53% who don't pay any taxes? They need to start paying some, and paying some back. The 47% that have been paying their share are tiring of it.The last figures I saw said 47% don't pay. We don't need someone who will stand up for their right to be exempt from pulling the wagon.

ARS

frank4570
04-16-2012, 16:52
Me neither.



There was a time when I believed that also. The more I studied history and the writings of the Founders I realized we passed that point decades ago. It is already too late to change course. The only thing a RP victory would do is when things finally crumble, help remind some people why it happened.

But honestly even that would likely not be enough to reverse course after the system failure. Technology is a double edged sword and as Marx predicted would be the main catalyst of social, political and economic change. While it won't likely be an agricultural ordeal as he thought, it will still be. Once the collapse happens completely, technology may be at a point that those in charge will never again lose control; the vise will be closed and there will be no escape, no possible opposition to the all seeing eye.

I wish I could say you are a ridiculous alarmist. But the truth is that any other conclusion is really wishful think and shortsightedness.

Chronos
04-16-2012, 16:55
It's funny watching Republicans now try to convince THEMSELVES that Romney is somehow a better choice than Obama. What you forgot in your allegory is the last part where the patient dies because the drug failed test trial after test trial and the doctor ignored it and prescribed it anyway, resulting in the same end result to the patient. Death.

Romney and Obama both have anti-gun histories.

Romney and Obama both support government mandates on health care and insurance.

Romney and Obama both support continuing wars we can't afford.

Romney and Obama both support SOPA, NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, and every other rights stealing legislation Congress can come up with.

Romney and Obama both enjoy Wall St as main campaign donors and both support bailouts. I see a connection there, do you?

Romney and Obama both have shady, secretive histories and concerns over their religious choices.

Want more? I got a ton of them.

Now, between your post and mine which brings up tangible similarities (was: differences - typo) and which engages in pure speculation? :whistling:

Well said. If you think voting for Obama or Romney is "the answer," you are almost certainly a fascist without realizing it. Not a fascist in the "cheap slur" sense of the word, but a fascist in the "political philosophy" sense that you implicitly support a total state with its influence deep in every aspect of private and economic life.

chickenwing
04-16-2012, 17:08
There are some glaring similarities between Barry and Mitt that turns off us Paulbots. I'm speaking for myself, but since all Ron Paul supports are lumped together anyway, hell why not try and articulate a response that represents my fellow limited government heathens, as to why Mitt and Barry are not very different.



Both take a Keynesian approach to economics. Mitt is the better businessman no doubt. Both still agree that the government plays a large part in the economy though, and that the problem isn't government intervention, but how much and what tweaks to keep this can bouncing down the road.

Neither endorse a serious plan to reduce spending. Mitt has only promised to cut back on Barry's spending.

There is not much contrast between the two we it comes to the bailouts either, again only how much. But both still believed government intervention was the right thing.

Both favor a progressive tax scheme.

Both favor limits on the right to self-defense by restricting what tools can be used to "express" that right.

Both support the patriot act and more government power for the promise of security.



Basically both support the the status-qua concerning the role of government, and have no intentions of losing votes by not promising unicorns that drop gold deuces onto a persons lap thanks to wealth-distribution and debt slavery.

Layman's terms,

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5137/5532997783_4674cc0f47_z.jpg

http://thevictoryreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/kick_the_can_small.jpg

http://www.thedogsayshello.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/zombies21.jpg

tslex
04-17-2012, 12:53
Romney and Obama both have anti-gun histories.

Heck, fact is the only federal rule/law change about guns since Obama has been in office has been FAVORABLE -- removing restrictions on CCW in federal parks by confirming the law in given park to the state where the park is found. So now, for example, I can legally carry on frequent outings in Everglades NP.

Do I think Obama is a friend of the 2nd A -- of COURSE not, and I expect him to take the gloves off in the second term. But Romney's record is, if anything, worse.

As for SCOFUS appointments, no one here has ANY idea who Romney would appoint.

I won't vote for either of these guys.

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 14:17
I'm not voting for obama.

Then you're voting for Romney, I commend you. I agree that voting for a liberal is hard but it's better than voting for a Marxist.

RC-RAMIE
04-17-2012, 16:44
Then you're voting for Romney, I commend you. I agree that voting for a liberal is hard but it's better than voting for a Marxist.

There is a 3rd party


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 16:48
There is a 3rd party


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul


http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq286/whylookhere/smilielol5.gif I used to think so too.

Ruble Noon
04-17-2012, 18:21
Then you're voting for Romney, I commend you. I agree that voting for a liberal is hard but it's better than voting for a Marxist.

No, I won't vote for Romney either. I compromised and voted for Mclame. I am not going to make a habit out of it.

barbedwiresmile
04-17-2012, 18:22
People who can't tell the difference between Obama and Romney…

are too dumb to be allowed to vote.


LoL. This is classic GT at its finest. Classic GOP orthodoxy, really. Classic modern America, really.

God help us. This is so far from the truth that it's laughable. And suggests profound lack of understanding as to how our economy (and how our "government") works.

RCP
04-17-2012, 19:10
Originally Posted by G29Reload

People who can't tell the difference between Obama and Romney…

are too dumb to be allowed to vote.

Of course we all know and have been told over and over that its ONLY Ron Paul supporters who think they are smarter than everyone else and turn off potential supporters by acting like the above. :whistling:

coastal4974
04-17-2012, 19:18
No, I won't vote for Romney either. I compromised and voted for Mclame. I am not going to make a habit out of it.


Not voting for Romney, so you are voting for Obama. I’m so confused.

Oh wait, you think by not voting for Romney you’re still not voting for Obama. :faint:

All aside, I know exactly how you feel. I actually feel the same way but the difference is I’m not willing to give this country to the Marxist without a fight. And I don’t mean break out the ammo and prepping supplies, I mean voting.

Romney is almost the farthest thing I want in a candidate but he is not a Marxist, he is a Bush liberal. Not good but at least it will give us more time to take over the Pub party.

frank4570
04-17-2012, 19:51
LoL. This is classic GT at its finest. Classic GOP orthodoxy, really. Classic modern America, really.

God help us. This is so far from the truth that it's laughable. And suggests profound lack of understanding as to how our economy (and how our "government") works.

Just like any other kind of zealotry really.

Woofie
04-17-2012, 20:16
Romney is almost the farthest thing I want in a candidate but he is not a Marxist, he is a Bush liberal. Not good but at least it will give us more time to take over the Pub party.

There won't be any "takeover" of the Republican party if you continue to reward them by voting for their liberal candidates.

RCP
04-17-2012, 20:48
There won't be any "takeover" of the Republican party if you continue to reward them by voting for their liberal candidates.

Exactly

juggy4711
04-17-2012, 21:42
...I notice most of the 'too pure to vote for Romney' crowd are from Texas, did you all ever stop to think the rest of the country isn't as conservative as your state? Romney is clearly the rightward-most viable candidate this go-around.

I had a a US history teacher in college that told me and I am paraphrasing to the best of my memory "I've lived on the west coast and the east coast, in the North and the South, and in Texas. People east of the Mississippi think people west of it are crazy; people west of it think the people east of it are crazy, North thinks the South is crazy and the South thinks the North is crazy. Then there is Texas that thinks the rest of the country is crazy."

As for Romney being the "the rightward-most viable candidate this go-around". How does that help at this point?

I wish I could say you are a ridiculous alarmist. But the truth is that any other conclusion is really wishful thinking and shortsightedness.

Me too. Unfortunately as you stated it is wishful thinking or ignorant of history and Marx's theory of the evolution of economies. I know Marx is a bad word and villain to most here but the dude was a genius. Instead or sweating how much they disagreed with his ultimate conclusions, they should have considered his ideas warning of the directions we did not want to go and realize some of the reasons he thought we would do so were 100% legit.

aspartz
04-17-2012, 21:48
A Romney win doesn't guarantee great picks like the ones he admires (Alito, Roberts), but an Obama win guarantees more Kagans and Sotomayors, in which case you can kiss your gun rights goodbye.
A Romney win might also lead to picks that think the size and power of the government is just fine and decide that the TSA and PATRIOT act are just fine. It may also lead to a pick that wants to tear down Jefferson's "Wall of Separation." A fundamentalist on the court would be just as bad as a Marxist.

I notice most of the 'too pure to vote for Romney' crowd are from Texas, did you all ever stop to think the rest of the country isn't as conservative as your state? I wish it was, but it isn't. Ever been to Oregon, California, or the Northeast? If you're waiting for a Texas-quality conservative to be nominated, you'll probably never vote again.I'm from MN. I cannot hold my nose tightly enough to vote for Romney.
Romney is clearly the rightward-most viable candidate this go-around.That's about a big of a compliment as being the cutest girl in Iowa.

ARS

ICARRY2
04-17-2012, 22:16
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. :wavey:

Think about how many supreme court justices are going to retire in the next four years.

juggy4711
04-17-2012, 22:34
Think about how many supreme court justices are going to retire in the next four years.

Despite notions to the contrary, we have and looking to history a lot of us have deiced it won't make a difference in the long run.

RCP
04-17-2012, 23:25
Think about how many supreme court justices are going to retire in the next four years.

How many? Also as myself and many others have pointed out what makes you think the Liberal Romney would appoint justices that are any better than the ones Obama has?

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 06:50
There won't be any "takeover" of the Republican party if you continue to reward them by voting for their liberal candidates.


There won’t be any liberty left if we give up and stay home. The Marxists took over the Dem party, there is no reason why Americans can’t take over the Pub party.

The Marxists have been content with their takeover taking decades and it’s paid off for them. Americans want everything now or they take their ball and go home.

Ruble Noon
04-18-2012, 06:55
There won’t be any liberty left if we give up and stay home. The Marxists took over the Dem party, there is no reason why Americans can’t take over the Pub party.

The Marxists have been content with their takeover taking decades and it’s paid off for them. Americans want everything now or they take their ball and go home.

The way to do this is by electing a progressive to the highest office? :dunno:

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 07:06
The way to do this is by electing a progressive to the highest office? :dunno:


If it means not electing a Marxist yes. It's pretty sad that that is what we've allowed ourselves to get down to but that was by our doing.

We need to continue to find and elect Americans, Prez is not as important as both houses. It's going to take time, Americans just woke up a few years ago after living fat dumb and happy for decades.

Woofie
04-18-2012, 09:42
There won’t be any liberty left if we give up and stay home. The Marxists took over the Dem party, there is no reason why Americans can’t take over the Pub party.Keep telling yourself this. Did it come to fruition in the last election? This same argument is made every election. You might see a little hope in the Senate and House elections, but if you keep giving approval and justifying your vote by saying "At least it's not Obama. We'll find someone better in eight years," you'll see eight more years of no real economic growth, forfieture of power to our enemies, wars that continue to drain the country's bank account, and a growing welfare class who sees the Republicans aren't giving them enough. Now you've set the stage again for someone even further left than Obama, and the Republicans slide further left to compensate.

The Marxists have been content with their takeover taking decades and it’s paid off for them. Americans want everything now or they take their ball and go home.



If it means not electing a Marxist yes. It's pretty sad that that is what we've allowed ourselves to get down to but that was by our doing.

We need to continue to find and elect Americans, Prez is not as important as both houses. It's going to take time, Americans just woke up a few years ago after living fat dumb and happy for decades.

The problem is that once the election is over, no one cares about what's going on in Washington anymore. Sure, you and I do, and the few who post in PI, but the vast majority of Americans are going to vote for an R or D and not know one thing about the candidate they are voting for. How are you going to filter out the RINOs from true conservatives when most Americans vote based only on party affiliation and who they see on TV the most?

G19G20
04-18-2012, 11:19
.

Romney is almost the farthest thing I want in a candidate but he is not a Marxist, he is a Bush liberal. Not good but at least it will give us more time to take over the Pub party.

What does that even mean? You're going to take over the Republican Party by electing someone worse than the last RINO candidate? I really don't understand what's going on in your head. Watching the party slide farther down the slope is your solution to fixing it? At least if Obama wins he'll be out in 4 years for sure and conservatives will stay on their toes and keep fighting liberalism. Electing a liberal Republican only serves to get the GOP more comfortable with being liberal.

The only ones working to take over the party are Paul supporters and it's because we know we don't have enough time to wait out a Romney presidency.

Green70
04-18-2012, 11:22
That's about a big of a compliment as being the cutest girl in Iowa.



I've been to Iowa and there are some very attractive girls there... No idea what you are talking about...:dunno:

Is your statement based on fact or just more of a regional Ford vs Chevy pissing contest?

frank4570
04-18-2012, 11:34
We will continue down this same path, each year giving more ground, and eventually republicans will long for the good old days when they had conservative candidates like Mitt Romney.

Bren
04-18-2012, 12:19
Me too. Unfortunately as you stated it is wishful thinking or ignorant of history and Marx's theory of the evolution of economies. I know Marx is a bad word and villain to most here but the dude was a genius.

If Marx was a genius, it was in motivating followers, not in understanding economics. You'd do better to quote Marx on how to influence a cult-like following, no matter how flawed your beliefs.

lancesorbenson
04-18-2012, 13:09
I've been to Iowa and there are some very attractive girls there... No idea what you are talking about...:dunno:

Is your statement based on fact or just more of a regional Ford vs Chevy pissing contest?

I took a couple of summer classes at University of Iowa one year and I have to say the women were very easy on the eyes.

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 14:41
The problem is that once the election is over, no one cares about what's going on in Washington anymore. Sure, you and I do, and the few who post in PI, but the vast majority of Americans are going to vote for an R or D and not know one thing about the candidate they are voting for. How are you going to filter out the RINOs from true conservatives when most Americans vote based only on party affiliation and who they see on TV the most?


I agree with everything you are saying. However, I hope that many Americans have waken up this time with the formation of the TEA party and we can slowly come back from the brink.

Giving up is the easy thing to do.

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 14:55
What does that even mean? You're going to take over the Republican Party by electing someone worse than the last RINO candidate? I really don't understand what's going on in your head. Watching the party slide farther down the slope is your solution to fixing it? At least if Obama wins he'll be out in 4 years for sure and conservatives will stay on their toes and keep fighting liberalism. Electing a liberal Republican only serves to get the GOP more comfortable with being liberal.

The only ones working to take over the party are Paul supporters and it's because we know we don't have enough time to wait out a Romney presidency.


No, by not letting the Marxists complete their fundamental transformation of the country.

The Pub party can’t be fixed, it has to be taken over from the Romneys and McCains by people like West and Rubio and Walker but you can’t do that if you give up and let the Marxists take over.

The difference here is you think we will survive Obama’s next 4 years, I don’t.

Ruble Noon
04-18-2012, 15:00
What does that even mean? You're going to take over the Republican Party by electing someone worse than the last RINO candidate? I really don't understand what's going on in your head. Watching the party slide farther down the slope is your solution to fixing it? At least if Obama wins he'll be out in 4 years for sure and conservatives will stay on their toes and keep fighting liberalism. Electing a liberal Republican only serves to get the GOP more comfortable with being liberal.

The only ones working to take over the party are Paul supporters and it's because we know we don't have enough time to wait out a Romney presidency.

Excellent post.

:cheers:

G19G20
04-18-2012, 16:15
No, by not letting the Marxists complete their fundamental transformation of the country.

The Pub party can’t be fixed, it has to be taken over from the Romneys and McCains by people like West and Rubio and Walker but you can’t do that if you give up and let the Marxists take over.

The difference here is you think we will survive Obama’s next 4 years, I don’t.

Well here's the problem right here. Supporting more status quo Republican politicians isn't the solution to restoring conservatism. If you really think that Marco Rubio or Alan West are great improvements over Mitt Romney then we're never going to see eye-to-eye about how to fix the future of the party. I look at those guys and just see more of the same type of bought-and-paid-for politicians that have led us down this path in the first place.

The Marxists can't complete the transformation if half of the country doesn't support it. That's why Obamacare is before the SCOTUS and other examples. What we can't survive is a liberal Republican that will work to convince Republicans that it's a-ok to be liberal and way too many will fall for it. (Just look at how many previously sane Democrats Obama has succeeded in turning into complete Marxists to see what I mean) That's the true "transformation" that the Marxists would love to see. Then we really are screwed because there will be NO DIFFERENCE between the parties whatsoever after the dust settles. That honestly scares me more than 4 more years of Obama, but with Republicans still fighting his agenda. Rolling over to the Romney agenda worries me much more because it signals the end of conservatism as we know it. Conservatism stays alive with Obama at the helm but dies with Romney there.

(You all should save this post somewhere for future reference. I have the feeling it will be prescient if Romney wins.)

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 16:28
Well here's the problem right here. Supporting more status quo Republican politicians isn't the solution to restoring conservatism. If you really think that Marco Rubio or Alan West are great improvements over Mitt Romney then we're never going to see eye-to-eye about how to fix the future of the party. I look at those guys and just see more of the same type of bought-and-paid-for politicians that have led us down this path in the first place.

The Marxists can't complete the transformation if half of the country doesn't support it. That's why Obamacare is before the SCOTUS and other examples. What we can't survive is a liberal Republican that will work to convince Republicans that it's a-ok to be liberal and way too many will fall for it. (Just look at how many previously sane Democrats Obama has succeeded in turning into complete Marxists to see what I mean) That's the true "transformation" that the Marxists would love to see. Then we really are screwed because there will be NO DIFFERENCE between the parties whatsoever after the dust settles. That honestly scares me more than 4 more years of Obama, but with Republicans still fighting his agenda. Rolling over to the Romney agenda worries me much more because it signals the end of conservatism as we know it. Conservatism stays alive with Obama at the helm but dies with Romney there.

(You all should save this post somewhere for future reference. I have the feeling it will be prescient.)

Then what you're sitting home waiting for will not come.

G19G20
04-18-2012, 16:31
Then what you're sitting home waiting for will not come.

Sitting at home waiting? Ha. Ive got my Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules open next to me and I'm going back and forth between GT posts and studying the Rules. I'm a delegate for Ron Paul. There's no "waiting" at my house. ymmv.

coastal4974
04-18-2012, 18:14
Sitting at home waiting? Ha. Ive got my Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules open next to me and I'm going back and forth between GT posts and studying the Rules. I'm a delegate for Ron Paul. There's no "waiting" at my house. ymmv.


In that case, thanks for being a patriot.

barbedwiresmile
04-18-2012, 18:53
We will continue down this same path, each year giving more ground, and eventually republicans will long for the good old days when they had conservative candidates like Mitt Romney.

Dead on.

Cavalry Doc
04-19-2012, 06:39
The choices we will likely have pretty much suck. But re-electing Barry doesn't fix the republican party either. We can wish all day, and barring a cosmic event, it will be a choice between Barry and mitt.

Gripe about it all you like, but that is the unfortunate reality. Mitt is a liberal, Barry is a far left radical socialist. So, I'll take mitt if that is the choice. Then hope a good conservative smokes him in the next primary. A successful primary loss for Mitt in 2016 would be better in the long run than letting Barry have an unfettered four more years.


It's your vote, do what you want. It's your right. The smart move now is to prepare for either Barry or Mitt to be prez this time next year. Maybe something else will happen, but that seems to be the most likely outcome.

lethal tupperwa
04-19-2012, 06:46
a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate

OR

no vote is like voting for barry.

Restless28
04-19-2012, 12:22
At least Goldman Sachs wins either way! Yea!!!

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 13:33
The choices we will likely have pretty much suck. But re-electing Barry doesn't fix the republican party either. We can wish all day, and barring a cosmic event, it will be a choice between Barry and mitt.

Gripe about it all you like, but that is the unfortunate reality. Mitt is a liberal, Barry is a far left radical socialist. So, I'll take mitt if that is the choice. Then hope a good conservative smokes him in the next primary. A successful primary loss for Mitt in 2016 would be better in the long run than letting Barry have an unfettered four more years.


It's your vote, do what you want. It's your right. The smart move now is to prepare for either Barry or Mitt to be prez this time next year. Maybe something else will happen, but that seems to be the most likely outcome.

Of course if rank and file Republicans were serious about not nominating a liberal, they could still choose someone else in the remaining 19 primaries.

Cavalry Doc
04-19-2012, 16:56
Of course if rank and file Republicans were serious about not nominating a liberal, they could still choose someone else in the remaining 19 primaries.

We'll see how it goes, the future is fun to watch because nothing is certain. But it sure looks like Romney is going to get the nomination at this point in time. I will vote for anyone but Romney in the Primary. Hopefully Paul or Gingrich stick it out until the Texas Primary.

This whole primary system is screwed up. This is twice now that the nominee has been all but chosen before I, and several million other right leaning Texans get a chance to have some input. A single day primary would sure be a lot better. Let them campaign for months, and then lets all vote on a single day to choose the nominee. It would be a lot closer to how the national level vote would go against the Dems. Oh well, I don't make the rules, but it sure sounds like a better way of doing it than we do now.

HexHead
04-19-2012, 16:59
To quote Tonto, "What do you mean "we", Paleface"

Cavalry Doc
04-19-2012, 16:59
a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate

OR

no vote is like voting for barry.

I gotta part ways with you there. I am a firm believer in voting for anyone but Barry. But some of the Libertarians on the thread have every right to write in Ron Paul (in case he doesn't run third party).

Your vote is for who it is for. It could have the effect of helping Barry out if they vote for Paul, but it is their vote, and they should be able to cast it how they want. I do understand them, even if I don't agree with them.

Cavalry Doc
04-19-2012, 17:03
We'll see how it goes, the future is fun to watch because nothing is certain. But it sure looks like Romney is going to get the nomination at this point in time. I will vote for anyone but Romney in the Primary. Hopefully Paul or Gingrich stick it out until the Texas Primary.

This whole primary system is screwed up. This is twice now that the nominee has been all but chosen before I, and several million other right leaning Texans get a chance to have some input. A single day primary would sure be a lot better. Let them campaign for months, and then lets all vote on a single day to choose the nominee. It would be a lot closer to how the national level vote would go against the Dems. Oh well, I don't make the rules, but it sure sounds like a better way of doing it than we do now.



To quote Tonto, "What do you mean "we", Paleface"

Racist remark noted. [/sarcasm]

In that context, I was speaking of all American voters.

juggy4711
04-19-2012, 18:19
If Marx was a genius, it was in motivating followers, not in understanding economics. You'd do better to quote Marx on how to influence a cult-like following, no matter how flawed your beliefs.

So you've read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital? The guy had his finger on a pulse and predicted a Labor party, socialist uprising in Germany long before the Nazi movement. He predicted a move toward socialism as populations perceived, correctly or not, injustices under the Capitalist system. That he was misguided in his belief that it would be a good thing is irrelevant.

As I implied, mention Marx being correct about anything and a knee jerk attack is sure to come. My beliefs are not misguided, they are informed. I don't agree with socialism or communism but he pegged how and why socialism would come about. His concept of communism has never happened because he failed to realize totalitarian socialism would never allow communism as he envisioned it.

Instead of getting all anti-Marx on me you should read what he wrote and take it as warnings about how Capitalism is practiced. If he didn't understand economics why is it that things are going down here and a lot of places in the world as he predicted? So yeah he didn't understand jack.

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 19:08
We'll see how it goes, the future is fun to watch because nothing is certain. But it sure looks like Romney is going to get the nomination at this point in time. I will vote for anyone but Romney in the Primary. Hopefully Paul or Gingrich stick it out until the Texas Primary.

This whole primary system is screwed up. This is twice now that the nominee has been all but chosen before I, and several million other right leaning Texans get a chance to have some input. A single day primary would sure be a lot better. Let them campaign for months, and then lets all vote on a single day to choose the nominee. It would be a lot closer to how the national level vote would go against the Dems. Oh well, I don't make the rules, but it sure sounds like a better way of doing it than we do now.

You'd have to away with political polling too, otherwise it'll just continue with the idiotic MSM horse race nonsense. It'd be interesting to see what kind of candidates would be chosen in nationwide primary devoid of this influence.

frank4570
04-19-2012, 19:43
You'd have to away with political polling too, otherwise it'll just continue with the idiotic MSM horse race nonsense. It'd be interesting to see what kind of candidates would be chosen in nationwide primary devoid of this influence.

Yeah, the government, the corporations, and the media have become REALLY tight over the last 50 years or so.

I'm still amazed during polls of the republican voters the media was reporting who was in first, second, and fourth place.

frank4570
04-19-2012, 19:45
a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate

OR

no vote is like voting for barry.

And by doing so, you prove to the republicans that it doesn't matter who they put out there, you will vote for them. Liberl, socialist, communist, whatever, as long as they say they are a republican.

lancesorbenson
04-19-2012, 20:25
Yeah, the government, the corporations, and the media have become REALLY tight over the last 50 years or so.

I'm still amazed during polls of the republican voters the media was reporting who was in first, second, and fourth place.

I'd also suggest all paper ballots and ID required. Also no announcing anything until the votes are tallied.

juggy4711
04-19-2012, 20:30
And by doing so, you prove to the republicans that it doesn't matter who they put out there, you will vote for them. Liberl, socialist, communist, whatever, as long as they say they are a republican.

And that is exactly how we have ended up with Romney as the sure bet as the Republican nominee. We'll put up with anything as long as it's our team over there's. Pathetic.

We have been doomed since day one as Ben Franklin predicted. It's all just been a matter of time and our time is quickly running out regardless of what party is in charge.

Cavalry Doc
04-20-2012, 07:45
And by doing so, you prove to the republicans that it doesn't matter who they put out there, you will vote for them. Liberl, socialist, communist, whatever, as long as they say they are a republican.

I think it is more a factor of who is willing to run. The MSM can talk well or poorly about a candidate, but ultimately, the voters in the primaries indirectly choose the candidate.

We need to encourage a real conservative to run. Unfortunately, with the last two primaries considered, it looks like the majority of republican voters are center-left now. It's sad but apparently true.

GAFinch
04-20-2012, 13:06
So you've read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital? The guy had his finger on a pulse and predicted a Labor party, socialist uprising in Germany long before the Nazi movement. He predicted a move toward socialism as populations perceived, correctly or not, injustices under the Capitalist system. That he was misguided in his belief that it would be a good thing is irrelevant.

As I implied, mention Marx being correct about anything and a knee jerk attack is sure to come. My beliefs are not misguided, they are informed. I don't agree with socialism or communism but he pegged how and why socialism would come about. His concept of communism has never happened because he failed to realize totalitarian socialism would never allow communism as he envisioned it.

Instead of getting all anti-Marx on me you should read what he wrote and take it as warnings about how Capitalism is practiced. If he didn't understand economics why is it that things are going down here and a lot of places in the world as he predicted? So yeah he didn't understand jack.

Marx wasn't some special genius, all he did was envision a (more) secular version of the Anabaptist experiment in Germany from 3 centuries prior. His published works created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It shouldn't have been any surprise that socialism would lead to a totalitarian state, as that's what happened with the Anabaptists.

Woofie
04-20-2012, 13:17
We'll see how it goes, the future is fun to watch because nothing is certain. But it sure looks like Romney is going to get the nomination at this point in time. I will vote for anyone but Romney in the Primary. Hopefully Paul or Gingrich stick it out until the Texas Primary.

This whole primary system is screwed up. This is twice now that the nominee has been all but chosen before I, and several million other right leaning Texans get a chance to have some input. A single day primary would sure be a lot better. Let them campaign for months, and then lets all vote on a single day to choose the nominee. It would be a lot closer to how the national level vote would go against the Dems. Oh well, I don't make the rules, but it sure sounds like a better way of doing it than we do now.

A single day primary makes much more sense. The way it is now the candidate is all but chosen before the important red states get to vote.

G-19
04-20-2012, 13:59
A single day primary makes much more sense. The way it is now the candidate is all but chosen before the important red states get to vote.

What makes one state more important than the next?

juggy4711
04-20-2012, 22:22
Marx wasn't some special genius, all he did was envision a (more) secular version of the Anabaptist experiment in Germany from 3 centuries prior. His published works created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It shouldn't have been any surprise that socialism would lead to a totalitarian state, as that's what happened with the Anabaptists.

Created a self-fulfilling prophecy? Well he must have been on to something. The dude was wrong about the destination but he had the journey figured out. Special genius no, genius non the less. Just because his ultimate conclusions are things we find distasteful, is no reason to down play what he wrote. Raids on illegal milk, pig farms, housing bubble, corporate bailouts and so on, driven, empowered, and facilitated by the development of technology leading to unethical implementations of Capitalism as he described are exactly what drives the populace to desire, seek and vote fore socialist government.

Yet again, aside from his beliefs that it would be a good thing and stem from the agricultural part of the economy I fail to see how he was wrong.

Your point about socialism leading to a totalitarian government has merit though. With out a doubt Marx's flaw was that he naively believed man would take from those things and better civilization. Instead those in control took the opportunity to tighten the vice and secure their own power.

And that is no surprise.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 06:37
A single day primary makes much more sense. The way it is now the candidate is all but chosen before the important red states get to vote.

Very true.

Woofie
04-21-2012, 07:34
What makes one state more important than the next?

For example, Texas has more electoral votes and is much more likely to actually vote Republican as a state than New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island combined. Yet before Texas even has a say in the matter, the candidate is already a certainty.

Also, we take into account the preferences of territories in the primaries who won't even be voting in the general election.

DIXIE DUCK
04-21-2012, 11:58
a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate

OR

no vote is like voting for barry.

No it's not.

Javelin
04-21-2012, 12:00
Romney is a Turd.

Gary W Trott
04-21-2012, 15:19
Romney is a Turd.
That's being a little tough on turds isn't it?

G-19
04-21-2012, 15:36
That's being a little tough on turds isn't it?

It is comments like this that have me really believing that Paul was just a red herring to cause tension in the GOP. I don't think he was intended to ever stand a chance of being nominated. The Ronulans only seem committed to bad mouthing and destroying the GOP nominee. The whole RP agenda was to divide and conquer the GOP, in hopes of getting Obama re-elected. If they were serious about defeating Obama they would realize that it will take a moderate to beat him. You can't expect the populace to embrace such a radical change. You have to work on it one step at a time, and Romney is that first step.

There has been little talk on here about the Paul/Soros connectiolons but his supporters seem to ignore the obvious. I do belive that some of his supporters believe in what they say, and really are worried about our country. They are just being played by the left, and don't even realize it.

If they really believed that Obama is bad then they would still want to vote ABO, some have even said they would only to be blasted by their "fellow RP supporters". Some of the conspirators on here are trying to get some of the more level headed RP supporters to Vote Obama (to teach repubs a lesson) or to not even vote. Both help Obama. I just hope that people will see through this left wing gimmick.

I know this sounds absurd, but the left went to a lot of effort to get BHO in the WH. It stands to reason they would go even further to keep him there, and what better way than to divide the conservative base. Don't take more than a little time on various forums.

aspartz
04-21-2012, 15:57
It is comments like this that have me really believing that Paul was just a red herring to cause tension in the GOP. I don't think he was intended to ever stand a chance of being nominated. The Ronulans only seem committed to bad mouthing and destroying the GOP nominee. The whole RP agenda was to divide and conquer the GOP, in hopes of getting Obama re-elected. If they were serious about defeating Obama they would realize that it will take a moderate to beat him. You can't expect the populace to embrace such a radical change. You have to work on it one step at a time, and Romney is that first step.

There has been little talk on here about the Paul/Soros connectiolons but his supporters seem to ignore the obvious. I do belive that some of his supporters believe in what they say, and really are worried about our country. They are just being played by the left, and don't even realize it.

If they really believed that Obama is bad then they would still want to vote ABO, some have even said they would only to be blasted by their "fellow RP supporters". Some of the conspirators on here are trying to get some of the more level headed RP supporters to Vote Obama (to teach repubs a lesson) or to not even vote. Both help Obama. I just hope that people will see through this left wing gimmick.
:tinfoil: We "ronulans" simply want the GOP to return to the days when they were economic conservatives. You know, smaller government and all that.
We would not oppose a moderate for President, a person who is economically conservative and morally center (to left of center). The GOP has been moving in the opposite direction for years.

Would you vote for a Goldwater-like candidate or would that be to liberal for your views.


ARS

G-19
04-21-2012, 16:01
:tinfoil: We "ronulans" simply want the GOP to return to the days when they were economic conservatives. You know, smaller government and all that.
We would not oppose a moderate for President, a person who is economically conservative and morally center (to left of center). The GOP has been moving in the opposite direction for years.

Would you vote for a Goldwater-like candidate or would that be to liberal for your views.


ARS

I would like to see a candidate who is economically center and morally right of center.

Javelin
04-21-2012, 16:11
That's being a little tough on turds isn't it?

My buddy stopped over to borrow my DeWalt saw and I was pissed off about Romney (he is a Romney supporter).

He said anyone but Obama (the ballad of the lost hope conservatives). I told him that my turd is a better pick than Romney. At least I know what it's made of! So you're probably right... I am being a little hard on turds.

:tongueout:

Javelin
04-21-2012, 16:14
It is comments like this that have me really believing that Paul was just a red herring to cause tension in the GOP. I don't think he was intended to ever stand a chance of being nominated. The Ronulans only seem committed to bad mouthing and destroying the GOP nominee. The whole RP agenda was to divide and conquer the GOP, in hopes of getting Obama re-elected. If they were serious about defeating Obama they would realize that it will take a moderate to beat him. You can't expect the populace to embrace such a radical change. You have to work on it one step at a time, and Romney is that first step.

There has been little talk on here about the Paul/Soros connectiolons but his supporters seem to ignore the obvious. I do belive that some of his supporters believe in what they say, and really are worried about our country. They are just being played by the left, and don't even realize it.

If they really believed that Obama is bad then they would still want to vote ABO, some have even said they would only to be blasted by their "fellow RP supporters". Some of the conspirators on here are trying to get some of the more level headed RP supporters to Vote Obama (to teach repubs a lesson) or to not even vote. Both help Obama. I just hope that people will see through this left wing gimmick.

I know this sounds absurd, but the left went to a lot of effort to get BHO in the WH. It stands to reason they would go even further to keep him there, and what better way than to divide the conservative base. Don't take more than a little time on various forums.

Dude. Listen to yourself. You are going to stand behind Romney & his lies after lies. You are going to support anything that the GOP throws up on the carpet and calls "Their Candidate". Romney has a **** chance against Obama. ZERO. The whole election and selection of the GOP candidate is a scam pure and simple. Our country is broken and I won't even bother pretending that **** is good to go and that we have a chance of getting this country back on track. It's almost a lost cause at this point and someone like Romney that can't even eat a damn cookie without alienating the community is disgusting to watch.

I don't like liars. But if you get off on that sort of thing then by all means get behind Romney.

G-19
04-21-2012, 16:16
Javelin, do you work for a Soros owned company?

Javelin
04-21-2012, 16:16
Oh and to even hint that I am anything but a conservative you can go **** yourself.

Javelin
04-21-2012, 16:18
Javelin, do you work for a Soros owned company?

Nope. Why do you ask?

Bren
04-21-2012, 16:30
So you've read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital? The guy had his finger on a pulse and predicted a Labor party, socialist uprising in Germany long before the Nazi movement. He predicted a move toward socialism as populations perceived, correctly or not, injustices under the Capitalist system. That he was misguided in his belief that it would be a good thing is irrelevant.

As I implied, mention Marx being correct about anything and a knee jerk attack is sure to come. My beliefs are not misguided, they are informed. I don't agree with socialism or communism but he pegged how and why socialism would come about. His concept of communism has never happened because he failed to realize totalitarian socialism would never allow communism as he envisioned it.

Instead of getting all anti-Marx on me you should read what he wrote and take it as warnings about how Capitalism is practiced. If he didn't understand economics why is it that things are going down here and a lot of places in the world as he predicted? So yeah he didn't understand jack.


So, you responded as if I was wrong, then made a statement that agrees completely with what I said (although with a lot more words).

Huh?:upeyes:

G-19
04-21-2012, 16:38
Nope. Why do you ask?

Because you sure seem to be a pawn for Obama. Every post you make is anti GOP.

G19G20
04-21-2012, 18:07
Because you sure seem to be a pawn for Obama. Every post you make is anti GOP.

This really is the only retort you have, isn't it? I haven't seen a single post from you actually defending Romney's record, his electability, or anything really. It's all just trying to paint his critics as being Obama supporters or something while never defending your own positions. Obama this, Obama that. You never have a good thing to say about your OWN party yet you claim everyone else is anti-GOP. Weird. And tired.

bear62
04-21-2012, 18:17
I'm voting for Romney .........


When Obama is the opponent ...... I would also vote for Billy the Kid, Santa Ana, Charles Colson (of course he just died) etc.......

Obama must go.........

:wavey::wavey:

Javelin
04-21-2012, 18:19
Because you sure seem to be a pawn for Obama. Every post you make is anti GOP.

Because I think that Romney is trash, a liar, flip flop on every issue, anti-gun, pro-mandatory healthcare and basically a total sleaze bag I am obviously a pawn for Obama.

You are so keen. You should probably say something like "if you don't vote for Romney your a gay fag" or something to help put the peer pressure on.

:upeyes:

Restless28
04-21-2012, 18:25
Because I think that Romney is trash, a liar, flip flop on every issue, anti-gun, pro-mandatory healthcare and basically a total sleaze bag I am obviously a pawn for Obama.

You are so keen. You should probably say something like "if you don't vote for Romney your a gay fag" or something to help put the peer pressure on.

:upeyes:

You owe me a damn beer!! LOL!!!

rgregoryb
04-21-2012, 18:57
"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine."

frank4570
04-21-2012, 19:06
Because I think that Romney is trash, a liar, flip flop on every issue, anti-gun, pro-mandatory healthcare and basically a total sleaze bag I am obviously a pawn for Obama.

You are so keen. You should probably say something like "if you don't vote for Romney your a gay fag" or something to help put the peer pressure on.

:upeyes:

Freakin cracking me up.:rofl:

G-19
04-21-2012, 20:41
Because I think that Romney is trash, a liar, flip flop on every issue, anti-gun, pro-mandatory healthcare and basically a total sleaze bag I am obviously a pawn for Obama.

You are so keen. You should probably say something like "if you don't vote for Romney your a gay fag" or something to help put the peer pressure on.

:upeyes:

What about Paul's lies and flip flops? I guess those are ok.

RCP
04-21-2012, 20:46
Because I think that Romney is trash, a liar, flip flop on every issue, anti-gun, pro-mandatory healthcare and basically a total sleaze bag I am obviously a pawn for Obama.

You are so keen. You should probably say something like "if you don't vote for Romney your a gay fag" or something to help put the peer pressure on.

:upeyes:

I'm proud to have you as my neighbor!!:thumbsup:

RCP
04-21-2012, 20:52
I honestly think that the reason y'all Paul bashers are so mad is because y'all know Romney most likely won't win. Sorry but that's the truth of the matter, if your beloved GOP gave 2 squirts about y'all they wouldn't be feeding you such a crap sammich. Maybe next time fellas at least we only have to wait 4 more years before we can try again.:wavey:

frank4570
04-21-2012, 21:30
This whole primary system is screwed up. This is twice now that the nominee has been all but chosen before I, and several million other right leaning Texans get a chance to have some input. A single day primary would sure be a lot better. Let them campaign for months, and then lets all vote on a single day to choose the nominee. It would be a lot closer to how the national level vote would go against the Dems. Oh well, I don't make the rules, but it sure sounds like a better way of doing it than we do now.

You guys have educated me on on this primary system. I have to say, it doesn't give me much hope.

Cavalry Doc
04-21-2012, 23:53
I honestly think that the reason y'all Paul bashers are so mad is because y'all know Romney most likely won't win. Sorry but that's the truth of the matter, if your beloved GOP gave 2 squirts about y'all they wouldn't be feeding you such a crap sammich. Maybe next time fellas at least we only have to wait 4 more years before we can try again.:wavey:

Seems you are a bit mad yerself. Most of us aren't happy, but we should be able to see what is coming. Romney or Barry will likely be president this time next year. I'm not happy about a Romney first term, but would like a Barry second term less.

Javelin
04-22-2012, 00:15
What about Paul's lies and flip flops? I guess those are ok.

Ok I'll bite.

One of the saddest days I can recall in recent memory was last February when nine unqualified candidates lined up and we were told who we had to pick one to be our next President. It was an absolute joke and an embarrassment. One after another (Herman Cain, Perry, Santorum, etc)... and then Gingrich. Come on those that call yourselves conservatives, the GOP is basically dragging out and resurrecting the Herman Munsters. It's like now going to a Show-Biz Pizza/Chuck-E-Cheez and trying to get excited over the singing mouse or some dancing bear. They are old, worn and tired and we've seen the acts over and over again for decades and they are the same damn songs and dance.

My duty as an American citizen is to vote for the best candidate. In this case Ron Paul is the best of the unsatisfactory. The mantra of "Anyone But Obama" lost it's luster in 2008 when we had to hold our nose and vote McCain. After that election I ran out of excuses for why the GOP can't put a solid conservative candidate on the stand to rally around.

I don't care the reason the GOP is the way it is. I am tired of drinking from the same liberal quasi-Republican turd bowl and smiling like it's good. It is getting us no where. Romney is basically an unlikable and untrustworthy liberal version of Bob Dole.

Right now America is in trouble.

She is in big trouble.

We need a Hero. And we ain't got one.

G29Reload
04-22-2012, 00:18
I honestly think that the reason y'all Paul bashers are so mad is because y'all know Romney most likely won't win.

Not in the least. I know I spent a year in shock, absolute incredulity that BHO got elected in the first place, but after seeing what he's done and now we're suffering for it…for BHO to get re-elected,

a majority of this country has to walk into that booth and deliberately vote for him, saying, Yeah! I want MORE of THIS!

Really? I can't see it happening. We're eating a s#$% sandwich every day in this country…gas prices, unemployment, stagnant housing market…this clown can't govern, makes things worse, tries to shove laws down our throat that no one but slackers want, taxes are skyrocketing after the first of the year and he's still blaming Bush and everyone else but himself. He hasn't even said what his vision is for the next four years and he sure as shinola can't run on his record.

No. its Romney's to lose. He could, I suppose…anything's possible except RP.

But Obama winning again? Doesn't process…The amount of Stupid that has to line up and say, thank you may I have another!?

Can't see it.

aspartz
04-22-2012, 02:50
I would like to see a candidate who is economically center and morally right of center.
Part of being economically conservative is a desire for smaller government. Enforcing your morals with the tax code or criminal law is not smaller government. I do not care what a candidates personal beliefs are, as long as they are not going to be enforced or subsidized by the government.

ARS
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Paul7
04-22-2012, 07:59
Part of being economically conservative is a desire for smaller government. Enforcing your morals with the tax code or criminal law is not smaller government. I do not care what a candidates personal beliefs are, as long as they are not going to be enforced or subsidized by the government.

ARS
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

We are being forced to subsidize immoral behavior, i.e. the millions of kids born out of wedlock who are five times more likely to be in poverty. I'd say this is a legitimate subject.

aspartz
04-22-2012, 11:26
We are being forced to subsidize immoral behavior, i.e. the millions of kids born out of wedlock who are five times more likely to be in poverty. I'd say this is a legitimate subject.

The problem isn't the behavior, it's the subsidy. The government should do nothing to underwrite any behavior, including those that you would like to encourage. The government should do nothing to discourage behaviors of which you disapprove, but have no direct effect on you.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
04-22-2012, 11:36
The problem isn't the behavior, it's the subsidy. The government should do nothing to underwrite any behavior, including those that you would like to encourage. The government should do nothing to discourage behaviors of which you disapprove, but have no direct effect on you.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That's a little too broad. What about someone murdering their neighbor down the street from me. Should the government discourage that? It has no direct effect on me.

The government should regulate certain behaviors. That is reasonable. The debate begins when you try to decide which behaviors. Everyone has their own opinion.

frank4570
04-22-2012, 11:42
We are being forced to subsidize immoral behavior, i.e. the millions of kids born out of wedlock who are five times more likely to be in poverty. I'd say this is a legitimate subject.

Churches don't pay taxes so we are forced to subsidize religious businesses. I'd call that immoral. It has always been religious institutions from way, way back which have pushed having more and more and more children. It's cultural at this point.
Why we just stop paying people for the stuff they do?

aspartz
04-22-2012, 14:36
That's a little too broad. What about someone murdering their neighbor down the street from me. Should the government discourage that? It has no direct effect on me.

The government should regulate certain behaviors. That is reasonable. The debate begins when you try to decide which behaviors. Everyone has their own opinion.
The government should regulate that because it has a direct result on you neighbor down the street.
Perhaps a better statement would be "has no effect on an unwilling participant". In other words if the is no direct tangible victim, the government should no involve itself.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine