voting for romney [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : voting for romney


herose
04-27-2012, 01:30
Look he would not be my first choice, in fact I wouldn't have considered any Republican candidate among my first choice of people to challenge Obama. And for all his faults I feel certain that these people with strong ties to Muslim Brotherhood shown in this video who have found high government positions in Obama's tenure wont have them in Romney's.

This alone is reason enough to cast a vote for Romney, not Paul, not Obama and not sit this one out which is a vote for Obama.

[http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/how-to-share-rumors-of-war-3-target-u-s/

ScubaSven
04-27-2012, 01:44
Look he would not be my first choice, in fact I wouldn't have considered any Republican candidate among my first choice of people to challenge Obama. And for all his faults I feel certain that these people with strong ties to Muslim Brotherhood shown in this video who have found high government positions in Obama's tenure wont have them in Romney's.

This alone is reason enough to cast a vote for Romney, not Paul, not Obama and not sit this one out which is a vote for Obama.

Look he would not be my first choice, in fact I wouldn't have considered any Republican candidate among my first choice of people to challenge Obama. And for all his faults I feel certain that these people with strong ties to Muslim Brotherhood shown in this video who have found high government positions in Obama's tenure wont have them in Romney's.

This alone is reason enough to cast a vote for Romney, not Paul, not Obama and not sit this one out which is a vote for Obama.

Look he would not be my first choice, in fact I wouldn't have considered any Republican candidate among my first choice of people to challenge Obama. And for all his faults I feel certain that these people with strong ties to Muslim Brotherhood shown in this video who have found high government positions in Obama's tenure wont have them in Romney's.

This alone is reason enough to cast a vote for Romney, not Paul, not Obama and not sit this one out which is a vote for Obama.

[http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/26/how-to-share-rumors-of-war-3-target-u-s/

I'm not sure what you are trying to say . . . maybe if you say it again, it would be more clear.

JBnTX
04-27-2012, 03:48
Definitely a case of OCD. :rofl:

But I agree with every word.

Romney will do some house cleaning in the White House, and a lot of commies, marxists and terrorist lovers will be looking for new jobs.

...and the OP is correct that not voting is in effect the same thing as
a vote for Obama.

By denying Romney your vote, you increase Obama's chances of re-election.

..

fortyofforty
04-27-2012, 04:59
Now you will be accused of being a Romney cheerleader. Here it comes. :whistling:

herose
04-27-2012, 05:02
I'm not sure what you are trying to say . . . maybe if you say it again, it would be more clear.

Hey it was early in the morning and I was sleep deprived and I don't know what the heck happened.

The video shows the people Obama has appointed into high levels of government with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. IMO this is enough reason alone to vote Romney. There are other Obama atrocities as well that can be avoided by not allowing him a second term.

I am not a Romney fan by any means but another four years of Obama must not happen.

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 05:03
Now you will be accused of being a Romney cheerleader. Here it comes. :whistling:

1200feather was the Romney cheerleader.

eracer
04-27-2012, 05:06
It saddens me that I must end my support for the Libertarian party this year and vote for Obama Lite.

ChuteTheMall
04-27-2012, 05:33
I am not a Romney fan by any means but another four years of Obama must not happen.

I'm a fan of whoever can defeat Obama.

Welcome aboard to those Ron Paul supporters who will unite with the GOP to elect Romney (and hopefully a strong conservative Congress super-majority).

:elephant::elephant:
:deadhorse:
















.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 06:24
Presidents do not go to washington alone. The far left radicals that Barry has surrounded himself with is just another reason to hope that he is a one term president.

QNman
04-27-2012, 06:33
Presidents do not go to washington alone. The far left radicals that Barry has surrounded himself with is just another reason to hope that he is a one term president.

This. Hell, I'd vote against Obama based on Geithner and Holder alone.

Cambo
04-27-2012, 08:10
I will not only be voting for him, I will be donating to him. I want Obama out so bad, this is what I need to do. I don't want to hear how bad Romney is blah, blah, blah, even if he only slightly better than Obama, he's the solution to a terrible problem. Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. You think you're going to send a message to Republicans by not voting? They won't know why you personally didn't vote, so it doesn't matter. If Obama gets re-elected, not one Romney hater here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc. You know what Obama is about, so you'll deserve what you get.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 08:52
This alone is reason enough to cast a vote for Romney, not Paul, not Obama and not sit this one out which is a vote for Obama.



A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

A vote for Paul is a vote for Paul. Does it also give Obama a vote? No. Does it also give Romney a vote? No. It only gives Paul a vote, nobody else. Nobody.

And if a person doesn't vote at all, does that give Paul a vote? No. Does it give Obama a vote? No. Does it give Romney a vote? No.
Not voting, is not a vote for anybody. It isn't a vote for Obama.

The Machinist
04-27-2012, 08:59
Romney will do some house cleaning in the White House, and a lot of commies, marxists and terrorist lovers will be looking for new jobs.
I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 09:09
A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

A vote for Paul is a vote for Paul. Does it also give Obama a vote? No. Does it also give Romney a vote? No. It only gives Paul a vote, nobody else. Nobody.

And if a person doesn't vote at all, does that give Paul a vote? No. Does it give Obama a vote? No. Does it give Romney a vote? No.
Not voting, is not a vote for anybody. It isn't a vote for Obama.

This is correct. Any action other than voting for Obama or Romney may or may not have a significant effect on the final outcome. Like it or not, people have a right to vote for, or not vote for who they want. I personally view voting as a duty, so sitting this one out is not an option for me.

Bottom line: it's an individual right. We should all probably stop ******in' and moanin' about how bad a person is for making their choice, and maybe focus on giving a good positive argument for your choice. That goes double for the Paul camp.

evlbruce
04-27-2012, 09:11
Progressives have destroyed orders of magnitude more wealth and prosperity than a bunch of third-world cave-dwelling Johnny Foreigners ever have. But no, we need to elect a self-described progressive to keep the "muzzies" at bay.

JBnTX
04-27-2012, 09:37
...Not voting, is not a vote for anybody. It isn't a vote for Obama.


By not voting for Romney, you're denying Romney a much needed vote.

If enough people refuse to vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

All the hate for Romney on this forum is increasing Obama's chances of winning.

There's a lot of Obama supporters on this forum and you can
bet your last dime that they will be first in line to vote for that fool.

They want you to stay home and not vote. That way their vote counts and isn't cancelled out by yours.

If you don't vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

Harper
04-27-2012, 09:41
Why do we keep saying the same thing over and over?

RCP
04-27-2012, 10:47
I'd wait til the convention is over before you decide who to vote for as it may end up being a brokered convention. Were still in the primaries and the only choices now are Romney and Paul which should be a no brainer at this point. Don't let people lead you to believe that Romney has secured all the delegates he supposedly has gained from the primaries thus far because it's simply not true. I can name at least 3 states so far that Paul has secured the most delegates from (even though the results claim either Romney or Santorum won) and its looking like there may very well be another 3-5 states coming.

Woofie
04-27-2012, 11:16
By not voting for Romney, you're denying Romney a much needed vote.

If enough people refuse to vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

All the hate for Romney on this forum is increasing Obama's chances of winning.

There's a lot of Obama supporters on this forum and you can
bet your last dime that they will be first in line to vote for that fool.

They want you to stay home and not vote. That way their vote counts and isn't cancelled out by yours.

If you don't vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

You keep blaming the victim. If the Republicans don't win it's the party's fault, not the conservative voters.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 11:41
By not voting for Romney, you're denying Romney a much needed vote.


By voting for Romney you are saying you desire our country to continue on this very bad road. More government, less freedom, higher taxes, and the erosion of the middle class.

RC-RAMIE
04-27-2012, 11:46
I If Obama gets re-elected, not one Romney hater here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc. You know what Obama is about, so you'll deserve what you get.

If Mitt gets elected not on conservatives here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc

JBnTX
04-27-2012, 11:48
By voting for Romney you are saying you desire our country to continue on this very bad road. More government, less freedom, higher taxes, and the erosion of the middle class.


No, I'm NOT saying that!

It's guys like you that are saying that.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 11:54
By voting for Romney you are saying you desire our country to continue on this very bad road. More government, less freedom, higher taxes, and the erosion of the middle class.

Actually, it would be supporting a road that is not as bad as the one we are on now. It's not a great road, but still not as bad as Barry blvd.

Both sides of this issue should really try to remain honest.

Woofie
04-27-2012, 11:57
I will not only be voting for him, I will be donating to him. I want Obama out so bad, this is what I need to do. I don't want to hear how bad Romney is blah, blah, blah, even if he only slightly better than Obama, he's the solution to a terrible problem. Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. You think you're going to send a message to Republicans by not voting? They won't know why you personally didn't vote, so it doesn't matter. If Obama gets re-elected, not one Romney hater here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc. You know what Obama is about, so you'll deserve what you get.

Keep telling yourself that this election is too important to lose so we HAVE to vote for Romney. If we don't get Obama out, the US will be gone in four years. Romney's past record is no indication of how he will act in office. Et cetera.

Want me to let you in on a secret? Last election the same argument was made. It was made for Bush Jr. too. That lame argument isn't working anymore. Some of us who actually enjoy having our freedoms are tired of having to choose between a ****** bag and a giant turd.

When your grandkids are saddled with "higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc." but have been stripped of their right to complain about it you have no one to blame but yourself.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 12:17
Actually, it would be supporting a road that is not as bad as the one we are on now. It's not a great road, but still not as bad as Barry blvd.

Both sides of this issue should really try to remain honest.

I would say it is the slower lane of the same road.

Bren
04-27-2012, 12:21
OK, once again, I'll say it.

I don't like Romney at all, but I'll vote for him (assuming he is the Republican candidate in the general election) because there is no other way to beat Obama. If Romney was exactly as bad as Obama, at least he'd be a first-termer who owes favors to Republicans instead of democrats.

Yes, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, if she was the only person besides Obama who had a chance in the election, because a first-term Hillary would be safer than a second-term Obama.

Bren
04-27-2012, 12:22
I would say it is the slower lane of the same road.

If you are on the road to hell and your only choices are the slow lane and the fast lane, I'd say the slow lane is the best choice.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 12:28
I would say it is the slower lane of the same road.

But it simply is not. Even if they are remarkably similar, you cannot honestly claim they are the same.

Blaster
04-27-2012, 12:37
In politics is is rare that one gets to vote for the ideal candidate. Typically is comes down to the picking the lesser of two evils. Fortunately in 2012 the choice is easy anyone but Obama.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 12:45
But it simply is not. Even if they are remarkably similar, you cannot honestly claim they are the same.

It looks to me that through the election cycles, we swing a bit left, then a bit right, left then right, left then right. But we are always going in the same general direction. We are NOT going in a direction of more freedom, we are going in the general direction of less. And in the general direction of more taxes, less personal responsibility. More debt, etc etc.

Just using guns as an example, it's great that I can CCW in a restaurant that serves alcohol now. But it doesn't change the fact that our republican nominee signed a permanent AWB in his state and he said he will sign one for the whole country. That's the guy who is supposedly on OUR side.

Back in the day ordinary folks could have a machinegun, or even buy a semi-auto sueplus U.S. military rifle, or get a cheap chinese semi-auto AK style gun. Those days are gone and I'm guessing they are never coming back. And the guy who is supposedly on our team has said he will take us farther down that road.
Signing an AWB is the same road as the one Obama is on, just slower. It's not a different road. At least not in my opinion.

G26S239
04-27-2012, 12:54
I will not only be voting for him, I will be donating to him. I want Obama out so bad, this is what I need to do. I don't want to hear how bad Romney is blah, blah, blah, even if he only slightly better than Obama, he's the solution to a terrible problem. Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. You think you're going to send a message to Republicans by not voting? They won't know why you personally didn't vote, so it doesn't matter. If Obama gets re-elected, not one Romney hater here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc. You know what Obama is about, so you'll deserve what you get.
The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, as in complaining about government, is not dependent on whether a person votes for Romney or not.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 13:17
If you are on the road to hell and your only choices are the slow lane and the fast lane, I'd say the slow lane is the best choice.

But it is failing to change direction. Getting to hell more slowly is not a good goal. Every election cycle we do the same thing and get farther down the same road. Same as this election cycle. We do the same thing, things get a little worse, so we do the same thing again.


BTW, I hope the job is going well. I know you busted your ass to get there. Not many people get to do what they really want to.

fortyofforty
04-27-2012, 13:19
To argue that George W. Bush is no different than Barack Obama is to argue that there is no difference between John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That is something I am not willing to do. The same type of choice will probably apply in November.

G-19
04-27-2012, 13:45
By not voting for Romney, you're denying Romney a much needed vote.

If enough people refuse to vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

All the hate for Romney on this forum is increasing Obama's chances of winning.

There's a lot of Obama supporters on this forum and you can
bet your last dime that they will be first in line to vote for that fool.

They want you to stay home and not vote. That way their vote counts and isn't cancelled out by yours.

If you don't vote for Romney, then Obama wins.

This. Unfortunately some people can't or won't see it.

Bilbo Bagins
04-27-2012, 14:22
To be honest I was not a big fan of Romney before the GOP Primaries started. However, the more I looked at how everything shook up, and now knowing his back ground. I'm glad he is going to be the Republican Nominee.

People think I'm crazy for saying this, but with the state of affairs right now, Romney is the perfect guy for the job, and HOPEFULLY when he wins, we should see some major improvement and a roll back of all the Obama screwups.

I think Romney between his vast wealth and his Ward Clever image can handle will be the Soros' back re-elect Obama war machine. Also with his venture capital background he knows how to come into a business, make it profitable, or get phase it out and sell it. We need someone like that in the White House after the post Obama bloating of the federal goverment.

I just really hope he wins.

G-19
04-27-2012, 14:26
To be honest I was not a big fan of Romney before the GOP Primaries started. However, the more I looked at how everything shook up, and now knowing his back ground. I'm glad he is going to be the Republican Nominee.

People think I'm crazy for saying this, but with the state of affairs right now, Romney is the perfect guy for the job, and HOPEFULLY when he wins, we should see some major improvement and a roll back of all the Obama screwups.

I think Romney between his vast wealth and his Ward Clever image can handle will be the Soros' back re-elect Obama war machine. Also with his venture capital background he knows how to come into a business, make it profitable, or get phase it out and sell it. We need someone like that in the White House after the post Obama bloating of the federal goverment.

I just really hope he wins.

Thank you.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 16:08
I think Romney between his vast wealth and his Ward Clever image can handle will be the Soros' back re-elect Obama war machine.

I don't understand what you said. Could you please elaborate.

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 16:13
But it simply is not. Even if they are remarkably similar, you cannot honestly claim they are the same.

They both end at the same place.....the edge of the cliff.

bucky_925
04-27-2012, 16:49
I am NOT a Obama fan, and didn't vote for him. I am a republican but....I am a railworker and have been for 31 years. I have never paid into social security. I have paid higher retirement over the years and our fund is 20 billion in the black...that's 20 billion! and Romney want's to take that away from me.....hell of a choice huh?

G26S239
04-27-2012, 17:42
I am NOT a Obama fan, and didn't vote for him. I am a republican but....I am a railworker and have been for 31 years. I have never paid into social security. I have paid higher retirement over the years and our fund is 20 billion in the black...that's 20 billion! and Romney want's to take that away from me.....hell of a choice huh?

Yes it is.

RC-RAMIE
04-27-2012, 17:46
I am NOT a Obama fan, and didn't vote for him. I am a republican but....I am a railworker and have been for 31 years. I have never paid into social security. I have paid higher retirement over the years and our fund is 20 billion in the black...that's 20 billion! and Romney want's to take that away from me.....hell of a choice huh?

But he is gonna be the GOP candidate we got to be conservatives and vote for him.


Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 17:46
It looks to me that through the election cycles, we swing a bit left, then a bit right, left then right, left then right. But we are always going in the same general direction. We are NOT going in a direction of more freedom, we are going in the general direction of less. And in the general direction of more taxes, less personal responsibility. More debt, etc etc.

Just using guns as an example, it's great that I can CCW in a restaurant that serves alcohol now. But it doesn't change the fact that our republican nominee signed a permanent AWB in his state and he said he will sign one for the whole country. That's the guy who is supposedly on OUR side.

Back in the day ordinary folks could have a machinegun, or even buy a semi-auto sueplus U.S. military rifle, or get a cheap chinese semi-auto AK style gun. Those days are gone and I'm guessing they are never coming back. And the guy who is supposedly on our team has said he will take us farther down that road.
Signing an AWB is the same road as the one Obama is on, just slower. It's not a different road. At least not in my opinion.

We all have our opinions. But it is a fact that Mittens and Barry are two different guys. They will surround themselves with different people.

Take a walk, or drive across a state line or two. Go buy a gun just for fun. Ordinary people can still own fully auto guns. I don't mind others having them, but to me fully auto is for people that don't know how to aim. If the zombies came, and all the rules were not a factor, and you needed a fully auto, it's not too difficult to make one out of a semi auto. And there's nothing illegal about owning the parts to do that, or having instructions on how to modify existing parts. Heck, you can download plans for a nuke, blow it up to poster size and hang it in the garage if you want.

I've seen how some of the rest of the world lives. Pre-1989, took several trips east of the Iron Curtain. I'm feeling pretty free tonight. I'm going to go home after watching my daughters color guard performance, in the truck I worked for and picked out, to the house I chose to buy, and may even have a beer, my choice on the brand too. Sunday, heading out to the range to work up a few reloads for my LR-308 and Rem 700. I won't be running around the mall naked other than a thin coat of mayonaise and a bag of squirrels, but I can live without doing that.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 18:01
Ordinary people can still own fully auto guns. I don't mind others having them, but to me fully auto is for people that don't know how to aim. If the zombies came, and all the rules were not a factor, and you needed a fully auto,

Not sure I agree.

But my point was not about which guns you think are alright for other people too own, or which guns they need, or why.

My point was that we are moving away from how this country is supposed to run. We have been, we still are, and Romney takes us farther.

fortyofforty
04-27-2012, 18:03
I am NOT a Obama fan, and didn't vote for him. I am a republican but....I am a railworker and have been for 31 years. I have never paid into social security. I have paid higher retirement over the years and our fund is 20 billion in the black...that's 20 billion! and Romney want's to take that away from me.....hell of a choice huh?

Links to evidence of Romney's scheme?

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 18:06
We all have our opinions. But it is a fact that Mittens and Barry are two different guys. They will surround themselves with different people.

Take a walk, or drive across a state line or two. Go buy a gun just for fun. Ordinary people can still own fully auto guns. I don't mind others having them, but to me fully auto is for people that don't know how to aim. If the zombies came, and all the rules were not a factor, and you needed a fully auto, it's not too difficult to make one out of a semi auto. And there's nothing illegal about owning the parts to do that, or having instructions on how to modify existing parts. Heck, you can download plans for a nuke, blow it up to poster size and hang it in the garage if you want.

I've seen how some of the rest of the world lives. Pre-1989, took several trips east of the Iron Curtain. I'm feeling pretty free tonight. I'm going to go home after watching my daughters color guard performance, in the truck I worked for and picked out, to the house I chose to buy, and may even have a beer, my choice on the brand too. Sunday, heading out to the range to work up a few reloads for my LR-308 and Rem 700. I won't be running around the mall naked other than a thin coat of mayonaise and a bag of squirrels, but I can live without doing that.

Are you as free as you were on the day that you were born? No.
Will your children be as free as you are today? Not if we continue on the same trajectory.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 18:26
Not sure I agree.

But my point was not about which guns you think are alright for other people too own, or which guns they need, or why.

My point was that we are moving away from how this country is supposed to run. We have been, we still are, and Romney takes us farther.

Now, let's not pretend that I have a problem with anyone (good guy citizen) owning a particular type of gun. I personally don't have a need for fully auto, but don't mind if other people have one. Plenty of people do have them.

Stuff costs money. Buy the stuff you want.

I would prefer that suppressors didn't need any paperwork, and you could get them at the grocery store.

It could be better, but it is still just about the best place on the planet to be.

RC-RAMIE
04-27-2012, 18:34
Now, let's not pretend that I have a problem with anyone (good guy citizen) owning a particular type of gun. I personally don't have a need for fully auto, but don't mind if other people have one. Plenty of people do have them.

Stuff costs money. Buy the stuff you want.

I would prefer that suppressors didn't need any paperwork, and you could get them at the grocery store.

It could be better, but it is still just about the best place on the planet to be.

Just because it is the best place we should settle for less than what it could be?

QNman
04-27-2012, 19:02
I am NOT a Obama fan, and didn't vote for him. I am a republican but....I am a railworker and have been for 31 years. I have never paid into social security. I have paid higher retirement over the years and our fund is 20 billion in the black...that's 20 billion! and Romney want's to take that away from me.....hell of a choice huh?

Say wha? Surely, you can cite this. Surely, you don't think Obama will keep his paws off your retirement, given half a chance...

QNman
04-27-2012, 19:10
Just because it is the best place we should settle for less than what it could be?

Does a lame duck Obama make it more of what it could be? Does a first term Romney make it worse than a lame duck Obama?

We know what kind of justices Obama will appoint. And we know enough Republicans will fold to approve them. We also know the Republicans seem to have more guts rejecting moderate judges nominated by a Republican president.

So which way improves our position? Which is more damaging?

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 20:11
Just because it is the best place we should settle for less than what it could be?

See, that's the problem with you guys, always a glass glass half empty.

NO. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Read it again if you like.

I would love for things to be better than they are. I hope they are some day. I'd love more freedom than we have now. Which is exactly why I'm trying to help to defeat the guy that I think is most likely to be able to curtail our freedoms. Barry has already stated that he is going to bypass congress, and possibly even ignore the supreme court if they rule against romneycare er... obamacare.

Both of them suck anal sphincter. But I'm not buying into the sour grapes that we couldn't nominate a perfect candidate, so lets flush the pretty bad one, which helps the absolutely heinous one stay in power, unencumbered by a consideration of re-election.

It may be an alien concept to some of the disappointed disciples, but a person can be pro-freedom, and anti-Romney, and still vote for Romney.


Lets just pretend for a moment that Ron Paul had never existed, not even for a little while. If it were only a two party race, and no other party were allowed to participate, and the race were between Mittens and Barry, who would be worse. Barry in a second term, or Mittens in a first term.

All things considered. Barry would be worse. Sour grapes.

All that being said. You really do need to vote your conscious. Do what you think is right, because you will be spending a little more time with yourself than you are with us. You need to be comfortable with your decision.

No guarantees, but right now, I'm thinking I'll be voting for Paul in the Primary, and Romney in the General. And being ready for Romney or Barry. Either way, I know that I cannot fix or take care of the entire country. But I can take care of my family. You be sure to do the same. I spent 20 years putting the country first by a long shot. I don't have the benefit of working with 5,000 well armed friends (and when I say well armed, these are the kind of guys that laugh when people call .50 "big bore"). I'm just Joe Civilian now. I'm better armed and trained to survive in austere environments than about 99% of the people in this country, but I'll still do what I can.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 20:39
It could be better, but it is still just about the best place on the planet to be.

No arguments from me. I have also spent some time in other countries. I prefer this one.

G29Reload
04-27-2012, 20:41
If you are on the road to hell and your only choices are the slow lane and the fast lane, I'd say the slow lane is the best choice.

Yep, or as I've said before,

I'll take Type II Diabetes

over

Malignant Cancer.

The first is treatable.

The second is funeral arrangements.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 20:45
No arguments from me. I have also spent some time in other countries. I prefer this one.

Cool. http://fc07.deviantart.net/images3/i/2004/11/6/9/Handshake_emoticon___UPDATED.gif

If the choices are to let things get worse than they need to be, or not..... You gotta consider the reality of the situation.


Personally, I won't be 100% sure who I am voting for until about 1 second after I've submitted my ballot. A lot will change in the next 192 days. Hang on. It's sure to be a wild ride.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 20:52
Lets just pretend for a moment that Ron Paul had never existed, not even for a little while. If it were only a two party race, and no other party were allowed to participate, and the race were between Mittens and Barry, who would be worse. Barry in a second term, or Mittens in a first term.



That depends. You seem to feel the same way I do regarding Romney so we won't rehash that. There are some variables to consider though.
There is a good probability that Barry would be dealing with a republican controlled house and senate during a second term. With both houses the republicans just might take their balls out of the freezer and put them back on.

Now if Romney is elected there is a good chance that he will have a republican house and senate also. The president sets the agenda and I guess they make their own laws now too. Will a republican congress fight back against a progressive republican presidents agenda? I don't know. There are a lot of progressive republicans. Will a republican house and senate grasp at the opportunity to implement their social agenda and possibly forfeit control of one or both houses to the democrats in the midterms?

It's a roll of the dice but sometimes that is what you have to do.

Either way I don't see much rollback happening.

GLOCK17DB9
04-27-2012, 20:58
Romney 2012!

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 20:59
That depends. You seem to feel the same way I do regarding Romney so we won't rehash that. There are some variables to consider though.
There is a good probability that Barry would be dealing with a republican controlled house and senate during a second term. With both houses the republicans just might take their balls out of the freezer and put them back on.

Now if Romney is elected there is a good chance that he will have a republican house and senate also. The president sets the agenda and I guess they make their own laws now too. Will a republican congress fight back against a progressive republican presidents agenda? I don't know. There are a lot of progressive republicans. Will a republican house and senate grasp at the opportunity to implement their social agenda and possibly forfeit control of one or both houses to the democrats in the midterms?

It's a roll of the dice but sometimes that is what you have to do.

Either way I don't see much rollback happening.

Most of the country, as well as most of the elected national legislature is to the right of Romney.

If the Unlikely happens, and the (R)'s hold onto the house and take the senate, I'd like to see a lurch to the right, just like we saw a lurch to the left when Barry sailed in with both houses.

Sometimes, the most Conservative, is really the least liberal. That seems really simple, but it's not, according to the multitude of threads in the forum.

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 21:03
I would say it is the slower lane of the same road.

Actually, it would be supporting a road that is not as bad as the one we are on now. It's not a great road, but still not as bad as Barry blvd.

Both sides of this issue should really try to remain honest.

Yeah they should.

If you are on the road to hell and your only choices are the slow lane and the fast lane, I'd say the slow lane is the best choice.

Just as bad but not as fast? Where does that lead us, down the same road. Just once I would like those willing to vote Romney admit they are ok with a stop gap measure rather than it will make a difference. That they are willing to put the burden off on future generations rather than pay the price themselves.

But it simply is not. Even if they are remarkably similar, you cannot honestly claim they are the same.


It's the difference between a train heading for New York from Cali at 100mph or 50 mph with the destination never changing.

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 21:06
Most of the country, as well as most of the elected national legislature is to the right of Romney.

If the Unlikely happens, and the (R)'s hold onto the house and take the senate, I'd like to see a lurch to the right, just like we saw a lurch to the left when Barry sailed in with both houses.

Sometimes, the most Conservative, is really the least liberal. That seems really simple, but it's not, according to the multitude of threads in the forum.

I'd like to see a lurch to the right also. However, our party has become the party of appeasement to the left.

RCP
04-27-2012, 21:09
Yep, or as I've said before,

I'll take Type II Diabetes

over

Malignant Cancer.

The first is treatable.

The second is funeral arrangements.

Dumb analogy as it's actually more realistic to say you have the choice between metastatic lung cancer or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Either one is probably gonna kill you, question is which one will do it faster.:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 21:10
Yeah they should.



Just as bad but not as fast? Where does that lead us, down the same road. Just once I would like those willing to vote Romney admit they are ok with a stop gap measure rather than it will make a difference. That they are willing to put the burden off on future generations rather than pay the price themselves.




It's the difference between a train heading for New York from Cali at 100mph or 50 mph with the destination never changing.

You must have one of them mighty fancy crystal balls.

The fact is that no one truly knows what the future brings. I'd rather have a liberal than a socialist making the decisions. If you are unable to see the difference, it's perfectly fine with me if you do whatever you want with your vote. We all get to choose. And we will all live with the consequences.

We'll have more to talk about this time next year, guaranteed, regardless of who wins.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 21:12
Yep, or as I've said before,

I'll take Type II Diabetes

over

Malignant Cancer.

The first is treatable.

The second is funeral arrangements.


Oof. Bad analogy.

Metastatic cancer is pretty bad. You'd be surprised by the numbers of people surviving malignant cancer, but dying of diabetes.

Sorry, but accuracy is important.

No hard feelings I hope.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 21:15
I'd like to see a lurch to the right also. However, our party has become the party of appeasement to the left.

The past is the past. I can only tell you of the future, after it has happened. I can tell you where Barry is heading, and that is further to the left than Mittens.

Time will tell.

Ruble Noon
04-27-2012, 21:15
You must have one of them mighty fancy crystal balls.

The fact is that no one truly knows what the future brings. I'd rather have a liberal than a socialist making the decisions. If you are unable to see the difference, it's perfectly fine with me if you do whatever you want with your vote. We all get to choose. And we will all live with the consequences.

We'll have more to talk about this time next year, guaranteed, regardless of who wins.

No crystal ball needed.

since the founding of the Federal Reserve has resulted in an increase of the money supply by 12,230%.

Since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241%. That’s not me misspeaking, I will repeat, since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241%.

http://lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel178.html

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 21:36
You must have one of them mighty fancy crystal balls.

The fact is that no one truly knows what the future brings. I'd rather have a liberal than a socialist making the decisions. If you are unable to see the difference, it's perfectly fine with me if you do whatever you want with your vote. We all get to choose. And we will all live with the consequences.

We'll have more to talk about this time next year, guaranteed, regardless of who wins.

It's actually not that fancy, it's called the past. You know that thing that has tended to repeat itself through out all human history. You are correct that I do not know for sure but I can make a reasonable guess based on past observations/behaviors.

I get that you would rather travel at 50 mph to a place that sucks as opposed to a 100 mph. I see the difference, it's the speed. But the destination doesn't change. And yes we all get to live with the consequences. I'm am prepared for the consequences of my vote. It won't be for Obama or Romney. A vote for neither is not a vote for Obama as other ABO types think. Not you Doc and for someone I disagree with I appreciate that.

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 21:41
No crystal ball needed.



http://lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel178.html

There are quite a few possible outcomes. Maybe we are past our prime. Probably so. But why help take us down nose first? Pull up and go for the belly landing.

We are in so deep, but so is everyone else, including those that are supposedly in good shape. China has hidden much of their economy.

Just something to consider. But money does not exist in nature. It is a man made instrument to measure the worth of work. It is so influenced by artificial influence, that it may not be worth the paper it is printed on. It's really not much more than monopoly money, except that we believe it has value. Even gold, which is useful in certain applications, is only worth as much as it is because people BELIEVE it is worth that much.

If you really wanted to fix it, you'd cap spending at 80% of income. You'd put 20% of federal income toward the debt until it was paid off completely, more if you could afford it, but a minimum of 20%. The first cuts should go to those that don't do anything. Tough cookies, but if you can do something, find a way to do it, even if you don't like it.

frank4570
04-27-2012, 22:19
If you really wanted to fix it, you'd cap spending at 80% of income. You'd put 20% of federal income toward the debt until it was paid off completely, more if you could afford it, but a minimum of 20%. The first cuts should go to those that don't do anything. Tough cookies, but if you can do something, find a way to do it, even if you don't like it.

I nominate Cavalry Doc for President of the U.S., this year. I don't give a crap what party.
And if he's elected, he's going. I don't care if he likes it or not.

Cavalry Doc for President!!!:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
04-27-2012, 22:27
I nominate Cavalry Doc for President of the U.S., this year. I don't give a crap what party.
And if he's elected, he's going. I don't care if he likes it or not.

Cavalry Doc for President!!!:supergrin:

48% of the American people would not be happy, for a while at least.

:tongueout:


This is really a remarkable country. It sucks in many ways. But it is the best in most ways. We've had a string of presidents in the last 50 years, and most of them didn't believe that, and it shows.

Same thing can be said for legislators.

ChuteTheMall
04-27-2012, 22:32
I nominate Cavalry Doc for President of the U.S., this year. I don't give a crap what party.
And if he's elected, he's going. I don't care if he likes it or not.

Cavalry Doc for President!!!:supergrin:

If he's elected, I hope he gives me a generous grant to study how best to implement his fiscal agenda.:faint:

frank4570
04-28-2012, 05:31
If he's elected, I hope he gives me a generous grant to study how best to implement his fiscal agenda.:faint:

Heck, I'm sure there will be free money for lots of us.:supergrin:

fortyofforty
04-28-2012, 07:02
Heck, I'm sure there will be free money for lots of us.:supergrin:

You can always demand a Congressional earmark. :upeyes:

RC-RAMIE
04-28-2012, 07:36
You can always demand a Congressional earmark. :upeyes:

You sure can nothing wrong with that and if people in congress do their job and discuss it on floor and decide it is unconstitutional they can vote against it so you finally realized a congress man asking for a earmark is not unconstitutional but voting for the spending is.


....

eracer
04-28-2012, 08:11
But he is gonna be the GOP candidate we got to be conservatives and vote for him.


Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.
We should have been conservatives when it really mattered.

QNman
04-28-2012, 08:29
We should have been conservatives when it really mattered.

Many of "we" were. Too many of "we" think the only way anyone can be "conservative" is to agree with them 100%.

None of the candidates we had were ideal candidates. I think we got (near) the bottom of the barrel, but it still beats four more years of a lame duck Obama.

G23Gen4.40
04-28-2012, 08:35
Many of "we" were. Too many of "we" think the only way anyone can be "conservative" is to agree with them 100%.

None of the candidates we had were ideal candidates. I think we got (near) the bottom of the barrel, but it still beats four more years of a lame duck Obama.

+1on this. We seem to be forgetting that the main agenda is to oust Obama.

walt cowan
04-28-2012, 08:45
if paul wins the covention, will you vote for paul...yes or no?

QNman
04-28-2012, 08:50
if paul wins the covention, will you vote for paul...yes or no?

Absolutely. With a big happy face. But then I like Paul more than I like Romney, so...

eracer
04-28-2012, 09:17
if paul wins the covention, will you vote for paul...yes or no?But he won't be allowed to win it. So it's a moot question.

Bren
04-28-2012, 09:25
Absolutely. With a big happy face. But then I like Paul more than I like Romney, so...

Same here.

Like I have said, I will be voting for the candidate that has the best chance of beating Obama. If that's Romney, or Jesse Jackson becomes the Republican candidate by write-in vote in may, I'll be voting Republican.

ChuteTheMall
04-28-2012, 09:53
The only way to defeat Obama is to support his opponent.

:deadhorse:

G-19
04-28-2012, 11:01
I have been saying that all along. However, some people got their panties in a wad because their guy is losing, and now want to help Obama win. By not voting or directly voting for Obama.

bucky_925
04-28-2012, 11:38
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/tcunion/legislative-outlook/10044-rrbudget

Google The Ryan budget if the link doesn't work.

evlbruce
04-28-2012, 14:36
+1on this. We seem to be forgetting that the main agenda is to oust Obama.

The main agenda is to get good government. Frankly the long term prospect of achieving such seems dim when the opposition's only goal is to throw the other guy out.

jakebrake
04-28-2012, 14:44
I'm a fan of whoever can defeat Obama.

Welcome aboard to those Ron Paul supporters who will unite with the GOP to elect Romney (and hopefully a strong conservative Congress super-majority).

:elephant::elephant:
:deadhorse:
















.

i will vote for a shoe, if it runs against obama...i will then glady travel to d.c. for the swearing in of president new balance.

fortyofforty
04-28-2012, 15:06
You sure can nothing wrong with that and if people in congress do their job and discuss it on floor and decide it is unconstitutional they can vote against it so you finally realized a congress man asking for a earmark is not unconstitutional but voting for the spending is.


....

Not even close. A private citizen demanding or asking for money from Congress is not unConstitutional. A Congressman demanding, in his official capacity, money be spent on projects that do not follow the Constitution is unConstitutional. Voting against the spending, after you demand it, when you know the bill will pass, is hypocritical.

RC-RAMIE
04-28-2012, 15:27
Not even close. A private citizen demanding or asking for money from Congress is not unConstitutional. A Congressman demanding, in his official capacity, money be spent on projects that do not follow the Constitution is unConstitutional. Voting against the spending, after you demand it, when you know the bill will pass, is hypocritical.

How is a normal person, group of people or organization suppose to ask congress for money is it by going through their congressman who is suppose to represent their district in the congress?


....

P35
04-28-2012, 15:35
anyone but obama

fortyofforty
04-28-2012, 15:37
How is a normal person, group of people or organization suppose to ask congress for money is it by going through their congressman who is suppose to represent their district in the congress?


....

The Constitution is very specific and highly restrictive in terms of for what purposes federal tax money may be spent. Congress is not a giant ATM whose role is to hand out money because constituents demand, want or even need it.

James Madison was quite clear when he vetoed a bill (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)calling for spending federal money on roads and canals.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

The spending on things like cowboy poetry museums and turtle tunnels and bridges to nowhere would certainly not have passed Madison's test of Constitutionality.

RC-RAMIE
04-28-2012, 15:43
The Constitution is very specific and highly restrictive in terms of for what purposes federal tax money may be spent. Congress is not a giant ATM whose role is to hand out money because constituents demand, want or even need it.

James Madison was quite clear when he vetoed a bill (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)calling for spending federal money on roads and canals.



The spending on things like cowboy poetry museums and turtle tunnels and bridges to nowhere would certainly not have passed Madison's test of Constitutionality.

I agree and I hold the people who vote for it responsible.


....

fortyofforty
04-28-2012, 15:58
I agree and I hold the people who vote for it responsible.


....

All of the ones who ask for the unConstitutional spending, in my opinion. No one gets a pass.

QNman
04-28-2012, 17:16
The main agenda is to get good government. Frankly the long term prospect of achieving such seems dim when the opposition's only goal is to throw the other guy out.

6 months ago, we tried to select a good candidate. A majority of those identifying themselves as Republicans picked, for their own reasons, Mitt. That was the time to pick the best candidate. Your candidate (and mine, ultimately) lost.

NOW we pick the BETTER of the two, even if the better isn't a great choice.

On election day, there will be two names to select from. You can choose to pick the better of the two or the worse - or neither. I have made my decision and know what I will do. You get to decide what you will do.

QNman
04-28-2012, 17:20
How is a normal person, group of people or organization suppose to ask congress for money is it by going through their congressman who is suppose to represent their district in the congress?


....

The Constitution is very specific and highly restrictive in terms of for what purposes federal tax money may be spent. Congress is not a giant ATM whose role is to hand out money because constituents demand, want or even need it.

James Madison was quite clear when he vetoed a bill (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)calling for spending federal money on roads and canals.



The spending on things like cowboy poetry museums and turtle tunnels and bridges to nowhere would certainly not have passed Madison's test of Constitutionality.

Please, guys. Start a thread about earmarks and go piss all over that one. Then when it's locked, get each others emails and take it off line. But please... PLEASE stop taking a dump all over every GTPI thread with this. We all know how all four of you feel, about earmarks, Ron Paul, etc. ad nauseum. Stop the thread locking.

stevelyn
04-28-2012, 19:16
Again we're forced to choose between the lesser evil.

All Hail The Lesser Evil!

fortyofforty
04-28-2012, 19:45
Please, guys. Start a thread about earmarks and go piss all over that one. Then when it's locked, get each others emails and take it off line. But please... PLEASE stop taking a dump all over every GTPI thread with this. We all know how all four of you feel, about earmarks, Ron Paul, etc. ad nauseum. Stop the thread locking.

Fair enough. However, we all know how you guys feel about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. I could do without the endless dumping on Romney for a while, too. I'm no big Romney fan, but the results of primary after primary are clear, as is the likely choice in November. How about giving it a rest? :dunno:

QNman
04-28-2012, 20:08
Fair enough. However, we all know how you guys feel about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. I could do without the endless dumping on Romney for a while, too. I'm no big Romney fan, but the results of primary after primary are clear, as is the likely choice in November. How about giving it a rest? :dunno:

I get it - truly. You've seen my posts on the subject. I've seen yours too. At some point, both sides just need to relax and see that neither side is near changing their minds on the details and move on to common pasture.

And thank you.

:beer:

The Maggy
04-28-2012, 22:31
By not voting for Romney, you're denying Romney a much needed vote.

If enough people refuse to vote for Romney, then Obama wins.



This is how elections work. Instead of crying about no one liking your candidate, have you thought about pushing your party to run a better candidate?

JBnTX
04-28-2012, 22:43
This is how elections work. Instead of crying about no one liking your candidate, have you thought about pushing your party to run a better candidate?


If no one likes Romney, then where did he get all those votes
that have literally guaranteed him the nomination?

My party doesn't need a better candidate.
The one we have is doing just fine.

The Maggy
04-28-2012, 22:52
If no one likes Romney, then where did he get all those votes
that have literally guaranteed him the nomination?

My party doesn't need a better candidate.
The one we have is doing just fine.

Then why worry about who does or doesn't vote for him... I mean.... it's a sure victory, right?

JBnTX
04-28-2012, 22:56
Then why worry about who does or doesn't vote for him... I mean.... it's a sure victory, right?


You're right!
I hadn't thought about it that way.

Thanks.:wavey:

fortyofforty
04-29-2012, 05:59
I get it - truly. You've seen my posts on the subject. I've seen yours too. At some point, both sides just need to relax and see that neither side is near changing their minds on the details and move on to common pasture.

And thank you.

:beer:

Cheers. :drink::bluesbrothers:

Cavalry Doc
04-29-2012, 06:17
I agree and I hold the people who vote for it responsible.


....



All of the ones who ask for the unConstitutional spending, in my opinion. No one gets a pass.


I noticed the loophole too.

No pass from me either.

Cambo
04-29-2012, 09:09
If Mitt gets elected not on conservatives here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc

Fair enough, I don't disagree with that at all.

Cambo
04-29-2012, 09:12
The 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, as in complaining about government, is not dependent on whether a person votes for Romney or not.

You know, you're right. But they still will have aided Obama.

Cavalry Doc
04-29-2012, 10:10
If Mitt gets elected not on conservatives here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc

If Ron runs third party, and Barry wins, and this time Ron actually gets enough votes that it makes the difference in Barry winning, will all the guys that voted for Paul show up and take credit for everything Barry does in a second term, unfettered by concerns for re-election?

I'm betting not. :whistling:

We all have the right, and the demonstrated ability to complain. Most of what is posted here are not compliments.

Other than whatever screen name 1200 is using now, none of us are going to be happy with a Barry second term or a Mittens first term. Those are the only likely scenario's barring a cosmic event. Ron might make a difference, but he most likely will not be president.

We should probably start getting ready for it, and looking for common ground. How are we going to contain Barry or Mittens.

Ruble Noon
04-29-2012, 10:30
If Ron runs third party, and Barry wins, and this time Ron actually gets enough votes that it makes the difference in Barry winning, will all the guys that voted for Paul show up and take credit for everything Barry does in a second term, unfettered by concerns for re-election?

I'm betting not. :whistling:

We all have the right, and the demonstrated ability to complain. Most of what is posted here are not compliments.

Other than whatever screen name 1200 is using now, none of us are going to be happy with a Barry second term or a Mittens first term. Those are the only likely scenario's barring a cosmic event. Ron might make a difference, but he most likely will not be president.

We should probably start getting ready for it, and looking for common ground. How are we going to contain Barry or Mittens.

Would all the guys that voted for Mittens take credit for Barry's reelection?

How many take credit for getting Clinton elected when they failed to vote for Ross Perot? :whistling:

RC-RAMIE
04-29-2012, 10:58
If Ron runs third party, and Barry wins, and this time Ron actually gets enough votes that it makes the difference in Barry winning, will all the guys that voted for Paul show up and take credit for everything Barry does in a second term, unfettered by concerns for re-election?

I'm betting not. :whistling:

We all have the right, and the demonstrated ability to complain. Most of what is posted here are not compliments.

Other than whatever screen name 1200 is using now, none of us are going to be happy with a Barry second term or a Mittens first term. Those are the only likely scenario's barring a cosmic event. Ron might make a difference, but he most likely will not be president.

We should probably start getting ready for it, and looking for common ground. How are we going to contain Barry or Mittens.

Haven't you been saying the past couple of days a vote for RP is only a vote for RP? Changed your mind already?


....

Cavalry Doc
04-29-2012, 11:23
Haven't you been saying the past couple of days a vote for RP is only a vote for RP? Changed your mind already?


....

I'm asking a question. I'm not promoting the idea, but it's still a valid question. You stated that conservatives don't have the right to complain if Mittens is elected and does stuff we don't like. I'm not sure where that right is given up.

People are going to complain, simply because there are going to be things to complain about. Regardless of who wins, the country is not going to head in the right direction for a while. I still fully support the right of anyone to do what they want to with their vote. It's a waste of time to try to change people's mind about what they want to do. It is a little interesting to see the reasons people have for doing what they want to do.

But the question remains, would you, if you vote for Paul, and the number of Paul's votes is significant, and the numbers show that if all of them had voted for Romney, that he would have won, and if he loses to Barry, are all the Paul supporters going to take credit for Barry's second term?

If not, why would you try to mandate that people that didn't like Barry enough to vote for Romney should not have the right to complain about Mittens?

Hope that is clear enough for you. It's more about your statement than my position. Which has been pretty consistent since I gave up trying to convince people. Your vote is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it. You can complain later if things aren't going the way you wanted them to go. And so can I, and the rest of the people here.

QNman
04-29-2012, 11:40
Would all the guys that voted for Mittens take credit for Barry's reelection?

How many take credit for getting Clinton elected when they failed to vote for Ross Perot? :whistling:

I voted for Perot - twice. I helped elect Clinton in the process. I am not proud of that, but neither do I pretend it didn't happen that way. I voted Perot for the same reasons Paul supporters are considering a 3P vote - because I didn't like HW or Clinton. HW may have been better. But now we'll never know.

Vote your conscience. But then own the result, regardless of the outcome.

RC-RAMIE
04-29-2012, 12:14
I'm asking a question. I'm not promoting the idea, but it's still a valid question. You stated that conservatives don't have the right to complain if Mittens is elected and does stuff we don't like. I'm not sure where that right is given up.

People are going to complain, simply because there are going to be things to complain about. Regardless of who wins, the country is not going to head in the right direction for a while. I still fully support the right of anyone to do what they want to with their vote. It's a waste of time to try to change people's mind about what they want to do. It is a little interesting to see the reasons people have for doing what they want to do.

But the question remains, would you, if you vote for Paul, and the number of Paul's votes is significant, and the numbers show that if all of them had voted for Romney, that he would have won, and if he loses to Barry, are all the Paul supporters going to take credit for Barry's second term?

If not, why would you try to mandate that people that didn't like Barry enough to vote for Romney should not have the right to complain about Mittens?

Hope that is clear enough for you. It's more about your statement than my position. Which has been pretty consistent since I gave up trying to convince people. Your vote is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it. You can complain later if things aren't going the way you wanted them to go. And so can I, and the rest of the people here.

I'm not even reading all that because my post was made in sarcasm to the post I quoted saying the same thing about RP supporters.


....

Cavalry Doc
04-29-2012, 12:15
I'm not even reading all that because my post was made in sarcasm to the post I quoted saying the same thing about RP supporters.


....

Then you'll please excuse me if I consider that lazy.

RC-RAMIE
04-29-2012, 12:22
Then you'll please excuse me if I consider that lazy.

I'm playing on the Internet im really not concern with what you find lazy so you are excused. I did copy and paste his exact words if you had a problem with me saying it about Mitt voters why no problem with him saying it about RP supporters?


....

chickenwing
04-29-2012, 12:29
I voted for Perot - twice. I helped elect Clinton in the process. I am not proud of that, but neither do I pretend it didn't happen that way. I voted Perot for the same reasons Paul supporters are considering a 3P vote - because I didn't like HW or Clinton. HW may have been better. But now we'll never know.

Vote your conscience. But then own the result, regardless of the outcome.

I wonder how different things would be if Perot won.

Anyways I wouldn't be ashamed of voting Perot. Like you said, Clinton may of been better then HW, or vice versa, who knows.

One thing is certain I think, in the overall scheme of things government would of grown either way.

That is the problem I have with Mitt and the GOP. They aren't even pretending to be steadfast in stopping the trend.

I understand the dynamic at play. The Paul Ryan budget is a perfect example. It's no where near enough cuts, but gets label extreme. The reasons are clear why Mitt endorsed it though, it's enough to say you're doing something, even though it does very little to stop the trajectory.

So when some old guy who doesn't have the best delivery, isn't exactly charismatic, and lays out the boring truth about America's current state of economic woes, and how it all ties into hotbed issues like SSI,Mcare, Mcaid, and DoD. And then boringly explain how monetary policy adds into the equation, and massive cuts across the whole spectrum of government needs to take place. No one wants to hear it, even though the math doesn't lie. Forget about it. It's all about who controls that power.



Honestly, someone tell me the core fundamental differences between Mitt's view on the bailouts, crony capitalism, assault weapons, state/federal mandates, patriot act, and foreign policy compared to Barry's.



Regards to the bold. Well said. Agree 100%.

QNman
04-29-2012, 12:46
I wonder how different things would be if Perot won.

Anyways I wouldn't be ashamed of voting Perot. Like you said, Clinton may of been better then HW, or vice versa, who knows.

One thing is certain I think, in the overall scheme of things government would of grown either way.

That is the problem I have with Mitt and the GOP. They aren't even pretending to be steadfast in stopping the trend.

I understand the dynamic at play. The Paul Ryan budget is a perfect example. It's no where near enough cuts, but gets label extreme. The reasons are clear why Mitt endorsed it though, it's enough to say you're doing something, even though it does very little to stop the trajectory.

So when some old guy who doesn't have the best delivery, isn't exactly charismatic, and lays out the boring truth about America's current state of economic woes, and how it all ties into hotbed issues like SSI,Mcare, Mcaid, and DoD. And then boringly explain how monetary policy adds into the equation, and massive cuts across the whole spectrum of government needs to take place. No one wants to hear it, even though the math doesn't lie. Forget about it. It's all about who controls that power.

Honestly, someone tell me the core fundamental differences between Mitt's view on the bailouts, crony capitalism, assault weapons, state/federal mandates, patriot act, and foreign policy compared to Barry's.

Regards to the bold. Well said. Agree 100%.

I think most of us get that. And most of us agree. I, for one, think that we must get Obama out, either way. Because while Romney and Obama are too similar in too many ways, I'll take a first term-er pretending to be more conservative to a second term avowed socialist.

It ain't pretty, but it is what it is.

I, for one, wish the party bosses would select the candidates again. After all, they gave us Reagan.

JFrame
04-29-2012, 13:04
I voted for Perot - twice. I helped elect Clinton in the process. I am not proud of that, but neither do I pretend it didn't happen that way. I voted Perot for the same reasons Paul supporters are considering a 3P vote - because I didn't like HW or Clinton. HW may have been better. But now we'll never know.

Vote your conscience. But then own the result, regardless of the outcome.

Yup, Q -- we can only do the best we can given the prism of the moment in which we view... :)

H.W. Bush gave us David Souter (not so hot) and Clarence Thomas (outstanding). Clinton gave us Breyer and Ginsburg.

Not to put everything on SCOTUS nominees -- but it is certainly consequential in the fabric of subsequent history. And in this regard, H.W. was a slam-dunk over Clinton.


.

Cavalry Doc
04-29-2012, 13:05
I'm playing on the Internet im really not concern with what you find lazy so you are excused. I did copy and paste his exact words if you had a problem with me saying it about Mitt voters why no problem with him saying it about RP supporters?


....

Yer welcome. :whistling:


The point is that all of us will have to justify our voting positions. Yes, even me. I'm not planning on getting what I want though.

I'll be here to complain about what I don't like, and you can do the same. I'm figuring that neither of us will get what we want.

QNman
04-29-2012, 15:43
Yup, Q -- we can only do the best we can given the prism of the moment in which we view... :)

H.W. Bush gave us David Souter (not so hot) and Clarence Thomas (outstanding). Clinton gave us Breyer and Ginsburg.

Not to put everything on SCOTUS nominees -- but it is certainly consequential in the fabric of subsequent history. And in this regard, H.W. was a slam-dunk over Clinton.


.

Excellent point. And one worth mentioning. Thanks.

Bren
04-29-2012, 15:56
Honestly, someone tell me the core fundamental differences between Mitt's view on the bailouts, crony capitalism, assault weapons, state/federal mandates, patriot act, and foreign policy compared to Barry's.



The core difference isn't in them or their views. The core difference is that one of them, if elected, owes favors to the Republican party and has to think about being reelected - the other, if elected, has a liberal mandate, nobody to please but democrats and will never have to run for election again in his life.

That is a MAJOR difference. Logic says, if they were 2 clones of Barrack Obama, we'd have to vote for the one running as a Republican for his first term. That couldn't possibly be more clear.

Bren
04-29-2012, 16:02
If Mitt gets elected not on conservatives here has the right to complain about higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc

I agree with you. But your argument defeats itself.

If Mitt doesn't get elected, no conservative who voted third party or stayed home on election day has the right to complain about all of those things being twice as bad under Obama in his second term, because anybody who can read the ballot knows that doing either of those things helps to reelect Obama.

If we should be worried about "higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc." then don't all of those factors favor Romney over Obama's second term?

It may be that Romney is the worst presidential choice in America...except for Obama. But your only choice is to have one of those 2 and, like that guy from Rush says, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

QNman
04-29-2012, 16:07
I agree with you. But your argument defeats itself.

If Mitt doesn't get elected, no conservative who voted third party or stayed home on election day has the right to complain about all of those things being twice as bad under Obama in his second term, because anybody who can read the ballot knows that doing either of those things helps to reelect Obama.

If we should be worried about "higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc." then don't all of those factors favor Romney over Obama's second term?

It may be that Romney is the worst presidential choice in America...except for Obama. But your only choice is to have one of those 2 and, like that guy from Rush says, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

(Psst... Geddy Lee)

RC-RAMIE
04-29-2012, 16:15
I agree with you. But your argument defeats itself.

If Mitt doesn't get elected, no conservative who voted third party or stayed home on election day has the right to complain about all of those things being twice as bad under Obama in his second term, because anybody who can read the ballot knows that doing either of those things helps to reelect Obama.

If we should be worried about "higher taxes, anti-gun Supreme Court Justice nominees, the debt, healthcare, foreign policy, green energy, racial division, class warfare, immigration, etc." then don't all of those factors favor Romney over Obama's second term?

It may be that Romney is the worst presidential choice in America...except for Obama. But your only choice is to have one of those 2 and, like that guy from Rush says, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

My argument was it sounded just as stupid said about Mitt voters as it does RP supporters.


....

JFrame
04-29-2012, 17:20
Excellent point. And one worth mentioning. Thanks.


:cheers:

Hey -- Yer always carrying my water for me, Q... :)


.

fortyofforty
04-29-2012, 18:41
Yup, Q -- we can only do the best we can given the prism of the moment in which we view... :)

H.W. Bush gave us David Souter (not so hot) and Clarence Thomas (outstanding). Clinton gave us Breyer and Ginsburg.

Not to put everything on SCOTUS nominees -- but it is certainly consequential in the fabric of subsequent history. And in this regard, H.W. was a slam-dunk over Clinton.


.

Good post. You beat me to it. And therein lies the danger in supporting a third party.

QNman
04-29-2012, 19:23
Good post. You beat me to it. And therein lies the danger in supporting a third party.

Yup. Learned it first-hand... Twice. It finally took.

juggy4711
04-29-2012, 20:58
I think we are forgetting the electoral college. The whole a no-vote, vote for a third party only matters in swing States. Even then voting for neither Mittens or Obama is still not voting for either no matter how much one side or the other wants to pretend it is. Some of us have a consciousness we have to live with regardless of the consequences. Some of us are perfectly fine with that as long as we did not give our consent to keep on in the same direction regardless of the speed.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry.

Whether it turns out figuratively or literally that is how I will vote.

Ruble Noon
04-29-2012, 21:01
I voted for Perot - twice. I helped elect Clinton in the process. I am not proud of that, but neither do I pretend it didn't happen that way. I voted Perot for the same reasons Paul supporters are considering a 3P vote - because I didn't like HW or Clinton. HW may have been better. But now we'll never know.

Vote your conscience. But then own the result, regardless of the outcome.

Was it our votes for Perot that got Clinton elected or was it the undesirability of the candidate that the GOP decided to field?

There seems to be a pattern

Bush sr.
McCain
and now Romney

QNman
04-29-2012, 21:02
I think we are forgetting the electoral college. The whole a no-vote, vote for a third party only matters in swing States. Even then voting for neither Mittens or Obama is still not voting for either no matter how much one side or the other wants to pretend it is. Some of us have a consciousness we have to live with regardless of the consequences. Some of us are perfectly fine with that as long as we did not give our consent to keep on in the same direction regardless of the speed.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry.

Whether it turns out figuratively or literally that is how I will vote.

Let me ask then... Who do you believe is receiving this message you are sending?

I've been there and done that. Message went unanswered. The first message gave way to Bob Dole. The second gave us W.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 04:51
I think we are forgetting the electoral college. The whole a no-vote, vote for a third party only matters in swing States. Even then voting for neither Mittens or Obama is still not voting for either no matter how much one side or the other wants to pretend it is. Some of us have a consciousness we have to live with regardless of the consequences. Some of us are perfectly fine with that as long as we did not give our consent to keep on in the same direction regardless of the speed.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry.

Whether it turns out figuratively or literally that is how I will vote.


Some of us have a conscious too, and are apreciative of what reality is. It's really rather rude to pretend only your choice is virtuous.

fortyofforty
04-30-2012, 05:20
Some of us have consciences mixed with reality. That seems to be the difference, Doc.

Bren
04-30-2012, 09:07
Some of us have consciences mixed with reality. That seems to be the difference, Doc.

And your conscience tells you to help reelect Barrack Obama?

Why is that?

1. In November, a new president will be elected.

2. That new president will be either Obama or the Republican candidate (probably Romney).

3. Every choice by an eligible voter on election day (Vote, D, Vote R, Vote 3rd party, don't vote) benefits one of those 2 candidates.

Barney can't break it down any simpler.

There is no way around that, so you'll have to figure out how your conscience feels about the one you help - because you will be helping one of them.

Bilbo Bagins
04-30-2012, 14:31
And your conscience tells you to help reelect Barrack Obama?

Why is that?

1. In November, a new president will be elected.

2. That new president will be either Obama or the Republican candidate (probably Romney).

3. Every choice by an eligible voter on election day (Vote, D, Vote R, Vote 3rd party, don't vote) benefits one of those 2 candidates.

Barney can't break it down any simpler.

There is no way around that, so you'll have to figure out how your conscience feels about the one you help - because you will be helping one of them.

+1

I was not a big fan of McCain either, but I still voted for him, because I knew all the more Republican "No-Shows" out there the more chance Obama had in winning. It what Obama wants and with his backdoor propanganda he will make these Republican lemmings do it again.

In 2008

1) Obama has a dinner with Senior GOP leaders and pundits including Rush Limbaugh, after the DNC convention.

2) Limbaugh and others conservative pundits bad mouth Obama, but SLAM McCain all the way until November 2008.

3) Some Lemming Republican voters choose not

4) Obama wins the White House

5) Obama and Limbaugh have another dinner when Obama moves into the White House, they laugh at the lemmings and smoke cigars.

6) Limbaugh has political fodder to keep him employed for another 4 years.

In 2012 the same thing is going to happen again, the question is....are you a mindless Lemming, because if you are you might as when buy yourself an Obama T-shirt and join the Occupy movement.

http://www.thecollaredsheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/LemmingsCliff.jpg

wjv
04-30-2012, 14:56
But it doesn't change the fact that our republican nominee signed a permanent AWB in his state and he said he will sign one for the whole country. That's the guy who is supposedly on OUR side.
.

No he didn't. . But feel free to keep telling that lie. .

MD ALREADY HAD a PERMANENT AW BAN. He signed a REPLACEMENT law that actually cleared up some of the language and made the law less restrictive.

Ruble Noon
04-30-2012, 15:08
No he didn't. . But feel free to keep telling that lie. .

MD ALREADY HAD a PERMANENT AW BAN. He signed a REPLACEMENT law that actually cleared up some of the language and made the law less restrictive.

And said

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.”

RCP
04-30-2012, 15:54
And said

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.”

Sssssh, they like to leave that part out

RCP
04-30-2012, 15:58
By the way here are the "improvements" he signed into law. Don't they look wonderful?! Can't wait to go in front of the Firearm Licensing Review board in hopes of being issued my firearms identification card! :upeyes:

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 16:44
If Ron runs third party, and Barry wins, and this time Ron actually gets enough votes that it makes the difference in Barry winning, will all the guys that voted for Paul show up and take credit for everything Barry does in a second term, unfettered by concerns for re-election?

I'm betting not. :whistling:

We all have the right, and the demonstrated ability to complain. Most of what is posted here are not compliments.

Other than whatever screen name 1200 is using now, none of us are going to be happy with a Barry second term or a Mittens first term. Those are the only likely scenario's barring a cosmic event. Ron might make a difference, but he most likely will not be president.

We should probably start getting ready for it, and looking for common ground. How are we going to contain Barry or Mittens.

That responsibility would lie with the GOP for not for not promoting a conservative candidate.

I'm here to tell you right now I will vote for RP either way. So bet lost.

QNman
04-30-2012, 16:54
That responsibility would lie with the GOP for not for not promoting a conservative candidate.

I'm here to tell you right now I will vote for RP either way. So bet lost.

The problem is - we ARE the GOP. Voting 3p won't change jack. There is no message you are sending except in your own mind.

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 16:55
The problem is - we ARE the GOP. Voting 3p won't change jack. There is no message you are sending except in your own mind.

No, I'm a registered Libertarian who was supporting the GOP.

ChuteTheMall
04-30-2012, 17:11
There are only two kinds of people. Two.

Those who oppose Obama, and those who support Obama.

:elephant::patriot:.......___>___.......:deadhorse::tinfoil:


Anyone who chooses not to vote for Mitt prefers Obama.


Us or them, it's really that simple.

:tempted:

syntaxerrorsix
04-30-2012, 17:18
There are only two kinds of people. Two.

Those who oppose Obama, and those who support Obama.

:elephant::patriot:.......___>___.......:deadhorse::tinfoil:


Anyone who chooses not to vote for Mitt prefers Obama.


Us or them, it's really that simple.

:tempted:

Enough said.

juggy4711
04-30-2012, 21:06
Some of us have a conscious too, and are apreciative of what reality is. It's really rather rude to pretend only your choice is virtuous.

Doc, I've got mad respect for what you do and have done with your life (as far I understand from your posts) but that doesn't mean I pull punches. It may be rude but it is the truth as I see it. Voting the lesser of two evils, or however you would prefer it phrased, which has for decades made no difference in the long run, is the very reason we are at such a crossroads.

It's not that I don't think you virtuous I just think you are wrong. One thing I think we would agree on is that RP as president would not likely make a difference either. If I and/or the candidate I choose to support can make no difference than I am left with no choice but to vote in such a way.

I realize that you truly believe that there is still hope for a better USA by voting for what you see as the least threatening of the candidates with the greatest chance to win, but I see no historical evidence for that to be the case.

I imagine we could both see the other as giving up but I don't see either of us as having done so. Just radically different approaches.

wjv
04-30-2012, 21:07
By the way here are the "improvements" he signed into law. Don't they look wonderful?! Can't wait to go in front of the Firearm Licensing Review board in hopes of being issued my firearms identification card! :upeyes:

Why? Was yours denied?

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

So according to you, having a formal process to appeal a denied permit is a bad thing? Opposed to just having Sheriff Billy Bob, or some bureaucrat telling you to go BLEEP off. . .

RCP
04-30-2012, 21:33
Why? Was yours denied?



So according to you, having a formal process to appeal a denied permit is a bad thing? Opposed to just having Sheriff Billy Bob, or some bureaucrat telling you to go BLEEP off. . .

Nope I choose to live in a shall issue state vs a may issue state and I'd prefer to keep it that way. I also prefer to carry a weapon with a standard capacity magazine vs a neutered version and I prefer to be able to own an evil black rifle with the shoulder thingy that goes up. I also prefer to live in a world where a "firearms identification card" is a foreign and laughable concept.

Apparently your all for those things though seeing that you support Romney.

fortyofforty
05-01-2012, 05:21
I realize that you truly believe that there is still hope for a better USA by voting for what you see as the least threatening of the candidates with the greatest chance to win, but I see no historical evidence for that to be the case.

Sotomayor. Kagan. Roberts. Alito. Thomas. Ginsburg. Breyer. You cast your vote. You make your choice.

Bren
05-01-2012, 06:07
Sssssh, they like to leave that part out

No, I don't leave that part out - I'd just have to be stupid to think Obama is less likely to want a ban. Romney has to worry about reelection and is constrained by the Republican party from doing things like that. Obama? No reelection and only democrats to please.

It's so simple a first-grader could work it out with no help.

Figure out how to get a candidate into the election, with a chance of winning, who is more pro-gun than Romeny, and he has my vote. Until then, Romney is still the best hope for gun rights, no matter how poor that hope is.

Cavalry Doc
05-01-2012, 06:13
That responsibility would lie with the GOP for not for not promoting a conservative candidate.

I'm here to tell you right now I will vote for RP either way. So bet lost.

I'm not sure you qualify as a score keeper. I'm betting that if the RP vote in the general reaches the margin of victory that the vast majority of those guys will not take credit for Barry's win. Bet most likely will be won.

I've given up trying to change minds. People are going to do what they want, and it's their right to do so, so instead of whining about the current situation, or berating others for their choices and criticizing them for their lack of intelligence or principles, I'm fine with letting people do what they feel is right. It would be premature to criticize one group or another for helping Barry before the votes in November are counted. It could have an effect, or maybe not. What will be will be. My energies are better spent preparing for both of the likely end points. Barry or Mittens will win the general. That's not guaranteed, but one of those two are the likely outcome.

Cavalry Doc
05-01-2012, 06:17
No, I'm a registered Libertarian who was supporting the GOP.

I'm thinking the slight majority of the guys planning on voting for Paul in November fall in the same situation. They always were libertarians (party as opposed to philosophy), and were just taking a spin at playing republicans for the publicity. These votes would probably have not gone to the Republican candidate anyway, so why fret over it?

It should be fun to watch.

Cavalry Doc
05-01-2012, 06:25
Doc, I've got mad respect for what you do and have done with your life (as far I understand from your posts) but that doesn't mean I pull punches. It may be rude but it is the truth as I see it. Voting the lesser of two evils, or however you would prefer it phrased, which has for decades made no difference in the long run, is the very reason we are at such a crossroads.

It's not that I don't think you virtuous I just think you are wrong. One thing I think we would agree on is that RP as president would not likely make a difference either. If I and/or the candidate I choose to support can make no difference than I am left with no choice but to vote in such a way.

I realize that you truly believe that there is still hope for a better USA by voting for what you see as the least threatening of the candidates with the greatest chance to win, but I see no historical evidence for that to be the case.

I imagine we could both see the other as giving up but I don't see either of us as having done so. Just radically different approaches.

I also understand your position. Which is why I have given up trying to change minds. It's reasonable, even if I consider it overly idealistic, and short on reality. Heck, even I'll qualify for the "don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper sticker after the primary. Everyone gets to make their own choice, mine is based on the same advice I've been giving since the start. Vote with your heart in the primary, and with your head in the General. It's still a long way until November. But we should all consider that Barry may very well win another term because Mittens, a liberal, won the primary. I can't take any credit for Mittens winning the primary, because I haven't had a say in the process yet, and never intended to vote for Romney in the Primary. But it still is what it is, a mess.

Cavalry Doc
05-01-2012, 06:28
Sotomayor. Kagan. Roberts. Alito. Thomas. Ginsburg. Breyer. You cast your vote. You make your choice.

Don't forget Harriet Miers. Her rise and fall are important too.

Cavalry Doc
05-01-2012, 06:31
There are only two kinds of people. Two.

Those who oppose Obama, and those who support Obama.

:elephant::patriot:.......___>___.......:deadhorse::tinfoil:


Anyone who chooses not to vote for Mitt prefers Obama.


Us or them, it's really that simple.

:tempted:

No offense, but that's a bit too digital in an analog situation.

People are going to do what they want, and we'll have to live through it. It's gonna be messy, but we will probably survive.

evlbruce
05-01-2012, 08:03
Don't forget Harriet Miers. Her rise and fall are important too.

Quite. Had Miers not been a stuttering train-wreck she very well could have been seated on the SCOTUS. (Re-watch the confirmation hearings, you can see the very moment when she falls apart.)

In close examination the parallels between Miers and Kagan are striking; had Miers been a first term nomination she would have been given a pass.

Ruble Noon
05-01-2012, 12:00
No, I don't leave that part out - I'd just have to be stupid to think Obama is less likely to want a ban. Romney has to worry about reelection and is constrained by the Republican party from doing things like that. Obama? No reelection and only democrats to please.

It's so simple a first-grader could work it out with no help.

Figure out how to get a candidate into the election, with a chance of winning, who is more pro-gun than Romeny, and he has my vote. Until then, Romney is still the best hope for gun rights, no matter how poor that hope is.

The same republicans that are stopping obama at every turn?....Oh wait... What have they stopped obama from doing? Debt ceiling? Nope. Cap and trade? Being implemented by the EPA. Then there was all the cheering over passing legislation to detain Americans indefinitely and their taking away our first amendment rights.
Yeah, I don't think I'll put much faith in the republicans constraining anything.

Bilbo Bagins
05-01-2012, 12:30
I seen this on a bumper sticker...

Don't Blame me, I voted for McCain, Not Barack Hussain.

Its a shame Mitt Romney doesn't rhyme