The poison in the soup- chill your blood here. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The poison in the soup- chill your blood here.


Skyhook
06-24-2012, 04:35
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

Just a reminder... the next president could affect the nation's future far more than just eight or so years..

Most here, like myself, knew this, but we need to not ever forget or ignore the dire consequences possible.

May you live in interesting times.

Bren
06-24-2012, 05:15
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

Just a reminder... the next president could affect the nation's future far more than just eight or so years..

Most here, like myself, knew this, but we need to not ever forget or ignore the dire consequences possible.

May you live in interesting times.

Many here are more concerned about "teaching the Republican party a lesson" by staying home or voting third party. The massive landslide of lost gun rights, that the supreme court could start instantly, with a single decision, means nothing to the intellectual-wannabes of the far right.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 05:46
The SCOTUS is probably my top election issue this time around.

Face it, the guys with siglines that say if Ron Paul is not nominated, the Republicans will lose every election in the future, are not going to change their mind. They are hard core cultists, and would actually be happy to see Barry pick 4 more Justices, just due to their own infantile need to lash out at the rest of the world for not worshiping at the altar of Paul as much as they do.

As someone pointed out earlier, you can't use reason to change someone's mind on a position that they did not use reason have in the first place. They will continue to seek a course of action that satisfies their emotional needs.

Oh well, what will be will be.

Skyhook
06-24-2012, 05:50
Many here are more concerned about "teaching the Republican party a lesson" by staying home or voting third party. The massive landslide of lost gun rights, that the supreme court could start instantly, with a single decision, means nothing to the intellectual-wannabes of the far right.


Suicide formula.

Self immolation.

Hara Kiri

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 05:52
Suicide formula.

Self immolation.

Hara Kiri

Nah, I think you are missing it on this one. They will gleefully hope that others suffer, all the while whining about it more than likely.

It's simple short sighted schadenfreude.

walt cowan
06-24-2012, 05:57
whaaaaaaah:crying:

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 06:02
whaaaaaaah:crying:

That's exactly what we are noticing. Need a tissue?


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/PaulgivesusBarry.jpg

G-19
06-24-2012, 07:56
The SCOTUS is probably my top election issue this time around.

Face it, the guys with siglines that say if Ron Paul is not nominated, the Republicans will lose every election in the future, are not going to change their mind. They are hard core cultists, and would actually be happy to see Barry pick 4 more Justices, just due to their own infantile need to lash out at the rest of the world for not worshiping at the altar of Paul as much as they do.

As someone pointed out earlier, you can't use reason to change someone's mind on a position that they did not use reason have in the first place. They will continue to seek a course of action that satisfies their emotional needs.

Oh well, what will be will be.

Well said.

G17Jake
06-24-2012, 08:19
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

Just a reminder... the next president could affect the nation's future far more than just eight or so years..

Most here, like myself, knew this, but we need to not ever forget or ignore the dire consequences possible.

May you live in interesting times.

Good reminder.

aircarver
06-24-2012, 08:22
Good reminder.

Blood curdling ..... :alex:

.

Cambo
06-24-2012, 08:41
It is more important for some here to sit out or vote for Obama because their man didn't win the primary. Very selfish and very childish on their part.

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 08:54
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.


:fred:Not sure whether glass is half full or half empty.:beer:

G17Jake
06-24-2012, 08:55
:fred:Not sure whether glass is half full or half empty.:beer:

It depends who is picking replacements.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 09:01
It is more important for some here to sit out or vote for Obama because their man didn't win the primary. Very selfish and very childish on their part.

It is interesting to see them come full circle, to be so absolutely conservative that the only correct thing to do is to vote for the most liberal candidate. Kinda reminds me of something.




















http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/thiswo4-Copy.jpg

Jerry
06-24-2012, 09:02
"If you protect a man from folly, you will soon have a nation of fools. [William Penn]

We are surrounded by fools. Anyone that believes by "not voting" or by voting for the worst candidate that they will get their point across is a fool. We are in the age of apathy and dependency. Hopefully there are more people with half a brain than not. But then I'm not so sure, look who's running things.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 10:49
It is interesting to see them come full circle, to be so absolutely conservative that the only correct thing to do is to vote for the most liberal candidate. Kinda reminds me of something.



Quick death or long protracted one

Like "Conservatives" who defend socialist welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare.......

countrygun
06-24-2012, 11:14
Everyone has already said 99% of what I could, but there is still a nagging question

It is more important for some here to sit out or vote for Obama because their man didn't win the primary. Very selfish and very childish on their part.

Can we really believe that they are all that childish? Some of these people certainly must be able to dress and feed themselves. I cannot abandon the notion, no matter how hard they yell "Don't throw me in the briar patch Mr. Bear" that Obama was their candidate al along.

JBnTX
06-24-2012, 11:53
Everyone has already said 99% of what I could, but there is still a nagging question



Can we really believe that they are all that childish? Some of these people certainly must be able to dress and feed themselves. I cannot abandon the notion, no matter how hard they yell "Don't throw me in the briar patch Mr. Bear" that Obama was their candidate al along.

I too think that Obama was their chosen candidate right from the start.

Anyway, they seem to have grown silent in the past couple of weeks.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 11:54
Quick death or long protracted one

Like "Conservatives" who defend socialist welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare.......


The only thing we disagree on is that it will lead to an actual death, and rebirth. I think it will just get worse, no death, no rebirth. I've seen places on the planet a LOT worse than where we are now. I also think that our system crashing, will not lead to more freedom. It will likely lead to less freedom.

Oh well, we live in interesting times, that much is for sure.

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 11:57
Everyone has already said 99% of what I could, but there is still a nagging question



Can we really believe that they are all that childish? Some of these people certainly must be able to dress and feed themselves. I cannot abandon the notion, no matter how hard they yell "Don't throw me in the briar patch Mr. Bear" that Obama was their candidate al along.

There's no doubt about that.

Even the dumbest and most dishonest of them knew all along that it would be an actual Republican against Obama, and that there was never the slightest possibility that Ron Paul would be the nominee. Obama was always their choice.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:02
I've seen them in their echo chamber. Some of them honestly believe that most people wanted ron paul, and that they must have been cheated to lose. It's a delusion of course, but I think many of them are honest about it.

Dexters
06-24-2012, 12:05
Most here, like myself, knew this, but we need to not ever forget or ignore the dire consequences possible.



Obama put his people in place Romney will need to take out O's people and put his people in.

Here's the problem - The Rs try to put in 'compromise' people - the Ds don't, so things keep moving to the left.

Gundude
06-24-2012, 12:09
There are two very prominent traits of unproductive, ineffectual people:
They will unceasingly mock anybody who's attempting to do anything outside of the status quo.
They will never run out of excuses for why they themselves will not do anything except toe the line.
You can decide for yourselves how relevant this post is to this thread.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:12
There are two very prominent traits of unproductive, ineffectual people:
They will unceasingly mock anybody who's attempting to do anything outside of the status quo.
They will never run out of excuses for why they themselves will not do anything except toe the line.
You can decide for yourselves how relevant this post is to this thread.

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/perseverancedemotivator.jpg

Right now, there are only two likely people that will be president this time next year. Just two, that's it.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:14
Obama put his people in place Romney will need to take out O's people and put his people in.

Here's the problem - The Rs try to put in 'compromise' people - the Ds don't, so things keep moving to the left.

Just the potential scotus picks in the next four years should be considered. If Mitt wins, it's a lot more possible that we will learn who exactly concocted and knew about F&F, and if nothing else, having everyone play musical chairs for a month or so, will slow things down.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 12:14
The only thing we disagree on is that it will lead to an actual death, and rebirth. I think it will just get worse, no death, no rebirth. I've seen places on the planet a LOT worse than where we are now. I also think that our system crashing, will not lead to more freedom. It will likely lead to less freedom.

Oh well, we live in interesting times, that much is for sure.

The death of the America we know is certain. The timing is open for debate.

Long, protracted decline in the American standard of living brought on by overwhelming debt and a growing State, end of Pax Americana (Republican Statists) or the acute collapse the Marxist/Progressives are working to bring about.

I think most Republicans and the pseudo-conservatives present prefer the former. The argument made by the libertarian-conservative types is that because storm can't be avoided, better to make it quick and get on with things.

I can see arguments on both sides for what it looks like afterward. I don't know that #1 or #2 really makes a difference there.

Gundude
06-24-2012, 12:16
http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/perseverancedemotivator.jpgThere's excuse #1: "Every possible obstacle is equivalent to a giant tornado"

Next.

Jerry
06-24-2012, 12:18
There's no doubt about that.

Even the dumbest and most dishonest of them knew all along that it would be an actual Republican against Obama, and that there was never the slightest possibility that Ron Paul would be the nominee. Obama was always their choice.

FOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries to MAKE A POINT. Now that that's over and done with it comes time to deciding who is going to run the country for 4 years. The only STATEMENT that needs to be / should be made now is... we're not putting a narcissistic Fascist back in office. Any other STATEMENT is deliberate self-destruction. Only a FOOL would do it.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 12:23
FOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries to MAKE A POINT. When it comes to deciding who is going to run the country for 4 years the only STATEMENT that needs to be / should be made is we're not putting a narcissistic Fascist back in office. Any other STATEMENT is deliberate self-destruction. Only a FOOL would do it.


Exactly. In my State Paul has a lot of support and no chance so a primary vote is making a point.


If Calvalry Doc is correct,

"I've seen them in their echo chamber. Some of them honestly believe that most people wanted ron paul, and that they must have been cheated to lose. It's a delusion of course, but I think many of them are honest about it."


We may well need to increase the dimensions of the Short Bus.

Brucev
06-24-2012, 12:23
In the upcoming election cycle I will vote for the most conservative candidate available. I am not wild about what are the apparent options. But, not voting or even worse, voting from a domestic terrorist are simply unthinkable. The sc is in play. That dwarfs every other issue. Because like it or not, the sc will determine what is done about every single other issue of consequence.

I will vote for Romney. He is the most conservative candidate available. I will hope and pray that he is elected. I am not thrilled by his positions on every issue. That's just the way things are. No candidate will ever completely satisfy the interest of all voters.

I will vote Republican in the other races on the ballot. Hopefully Republicans will be able to retain control of the house and gain control of the senate. That will allow them to put better legislation on the desk of the president for him to sign. If it is the squatter, they can pass the item twice to eliminate his veto. If it is Romney, they will have a much easier time of getting good legislation passed and signed.

Given time progress will be made. It will take time. The problems facing our nation have been years in the making. They will not be fixed in a nanosecond.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:53
The death of the America we know is certain. The timing is open for debate.

Long, protracted decline in the American standard of living brought on by overwhelming debt and a growing State, end of Pax Americana (Republican Statists) or the acute collapse the Marxist/Progressives are working to bring about.

I think most Republicans and the pseudo-conservatives present prefer the former. The argument made by the libertarian-conservative types is that because storm can't be avoided, better to make it quick and get on with things.

I can see arguments on both sides for what it looks like afterward. I don't know that #1 or #2 really makes a difference there.

Well, one of us is right, I think we could still see a couple of decades of misery before a reset happens.

Oh well, the glass is either half empty or 3/4 empty I guess.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:53
There's excuse #1: "Every possible obstacle is equivalent to a giant tornado"

Next.

The point is, be ready to change course from time to time. Stuff happens.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 12:55
In the upcoming election cycle I will vote for the most conservative candidate available. I am not wild about what are the apparent options. But, not voting or even worse, voting from a domestic terrorist are simply unthinkable. The sc is in play. That dwarfs every other issue. Because like it or not, the sc will determine what is done about every single other issue of consequence.

I will vote for Romney. He is the most conservative candidate available. I will hope and pray that he is elected. I am not thrilled by his positions on every issue. That's just the way things are. No candidate will ever completely satisfy the interest of all voters.

I will vote Republican in the other races on the ballot. Hopefully Republicans will be able to retain control of the house and gain control of the senate. That will allow them to put better legislation on the desk of the president for him to sign. If it is the squatter, they can pass the item twice to eliminate his veto. If it is Romney, they will have a much easier time of getting good legislation passed and signed.

Given time progress will be made. It will take time. The problems facing our nation have been years in the making. They will not be fixed in a nanosecond.

What conservative principles do you subscribe to?

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 12:58
Well, one of us is right, I think we could still see a couple of decades of misery before a reset happens.

Oh well, the glass is either half empty or 3/4 empty I guess.

No matter the nature of the catastrophe, if we remain free through the aftermath the reset will be favorable. "Free men and a free market can solve any problem."

Therein lies the rub: Holding the State at bay

When people cry out for solutions, the government is prepared to step in.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 12:58
In the upcoming election cycle I will vote for the most conservative candidate available. I am not wild about what are the apparent options. But, not voting or even worse, voting from a domestic terrorist are simply unthinkable. The sc is in play. That dwarfs every other issue. Because like it or not, the sc will determine what is done about every single other issue of consequence.

I will vote for Romney. He is the most conservative candidate available. I will hope and pray that he is elected. I am not thrilled by his positions on every issue. That's just the way things are. No candidate will ever completely satisfy the interest of all voters.

I will vote Republican in the other races on the ballot. Hopefully Republicans will be able to retain control of the house and gain control of the senate. That will allow them to put better legislation on the desk of the president for him to sign. If it is the squatter, they can pass the item twice to eliminate his veto. If it is Romney, they will have a much easier time of getting good legislation passed and signed.

Given time progress will be made. It will take time. The problems facing our nation have been years in the making. They will not be fixed in a nanosecond.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/RvD.jpg


They are not the same, not exactly anyway, which means one has to be better.

Gundude
06-24-2012, 13:15
They are not the same, not exactly anyway, which means one has to be better.

If candidates can be measured on a one-dimensional line, then maybe. But reality isn't that simple. There are many dimensions upon which to rate a candidate, and one is better on some, and the other is better on others. Which one is "better" at the end comes down to a personal choice on which of those dimensions are more important.

So you (general "you") can call one of them "better" by your criteria, but calling others who have different criteria fools, retards, and idiots does not make you come across any smarter.

Brucev
06-24-2012, 13:15
What conservative principles do you subscribe to?

I responded to the subject of the OP in terms of the upcoming 2012 election cycle.

As to the question of conservative principles, here's an idea. Why don't you develop a thread in which you can lay out what you consider to be the various principles that are conservative... and then let everyone post their comments.

G17Jake
06-24-2012, 13:31
On SCOTUS justices, I will take my chances with Mitt. We have seen who Obama picks.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 14:38
I responded to the subject of the OP in terms of the upcoming 2012 election cycle.

As to the question of conservative principles, here's an idea. Why don't you develop a thread in which you can lay out what you consider to be the various principles that are conservative... and then let everyone post their comments.

Why am I not surprised you wouldn't answer. :upeyes:

Brucev
06-24-2012, 14:59
Why am I not surprised you wouldn't answer. :upeyes:

I responded precisely. If you wish to explore the matter, go right ahead. There will certainly be response. Someone might even learn something.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 15:04
I responded precisely. If you wish to explore the matter, go right ahead. There will certainly be response. Someone might even learn something.

Again, dodging the question.

I'm truly curious what conservative principles you subscribe to.

You advocate for Progressive principles here almost daily.

Jerry
06-24-2012, 15:05
If candidates can be measured on a one-dimensional line, then maybe. But reality isn't that simple. There are many dimensions upon which to rate a candidate, and one is better on some, and the other is better on others. Which one is "better" at the end comes down to a personal choice on which of those dimensions are more important.

So you (general "you") can call one of them "better" by your criteria, but calling others who have different criteria fools, retards, and idiots does not make you come across any smarter.

I can think of several things I'm not so keen on about Romney. I can't think of one thing Barry is better on than Romney. So its Romany hands down. Anyone that can't see that is a fool. Anyone that cant look at history and see where the Obamination is taking us is a fool. Now that doesn't make me smarter just wiser. :fred:

rgregoryb
06-24-2012, 15:08
Quick death or long protracted one

Like "Conservatives" who defend socialist welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare.......

From the Ron Paul 2012 website:
Ron Paul’s plan to phase out Social Security does not ask people who have paid into the program to forego the benefits. Those he wants to give the opportunity to opt out would also not be taxed to support Social Security. Perhaps somewhat surprised by the line of inquiry, Paul did not give the best answer he’s ever given to this question. However, he explained it in detail in my own interview with him last year.

Under Paul’s plan, those who have paid into the program would continue to receive the benefits they were promised. The funds not collected from young people who opt out would be raised from savings realized by Paul’s cuts to overseas military spending and elimination of federal departments.

Ron Paul even stated he is drawing SS payments now....

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 15:18
From the Ron Paul 2012 website:
Ron Paulís plan to phase out Social Security does not ask people who have paid into the program to forego the benefits. Those he wants to give the opportunity to opt out would also not be taxed to support Social Security. Perhaps somewhat surprised by the line of inquiry, Paul did not give the best answer heís ever given to this question. However, he explained it in detail in my own interview with him last year.

Under Paulís plan, those who have paid into the program would continue to receive the benefits they were promised. The funds not collected from young people who opt out would be raised from savings realized by Paulís cuts to overseas military spending and elimination of federal departments.

Ron Paul even stated he is drawing SS payments now....

Paul is wrong on some things, like people "paying into" Social Security.

rgregoryb
06-24-2012, 15:20
Paul is wrong on some things, like people "paying into" Social Security.

I'm shocked :wow:

nursetim
06-24-2012, 15:46
I am somewhat upset that RP didn't get the nod. I will be voting for Romney even though he is barry light. He will be in the same position barry is in now, wanting a second term so he will be restrained. Then maybe next time we will get a real conservative like RP but has an intelligent foreign policy and a reasonable imigration reform policy.

Glock30Eric
06-24-2012, 20:29
We need to vote R house reps and senators because they have the power to appoint the judges in SCOTUS. They also have the power to reject President's nominate for the SCOTUS.

House Reps and Senators are more important than President in the position where the SCOTUS matters to you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TactiCool
06-24-2012, 21:03
Personally, I will be voting R down the line, like I usually do. And even though there are a number of Republicans on the state and federal levels that I don't like, they do seem better in my mind than the Democrat alternatives.

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 21:40
We need to vote R house reps and senators because they have the power to appoint the judges in SCOTUS. They also have the power to reject President's nominate for the SCOTUS.

House Reps and Senators are more important than President in the position where the SCOTUS matters to you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Welcome back to planet earth.


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

:headscratch:

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 22:35
We need to vote R house reps and senators because they have the power to appoint the judges in SCOTUS. They also have the power to reject President's nominate for the SCOTUS.



But of course, they won't.

They'll kick up sand and feathers will fly but in the end, Lindsay Graham will give a grand speech about why he's supporting the nominee......again.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 22:42
But of course, they won't.

They'll kick up sand and feathers will fly but in the end, Lindsay Graham will give a grand speech about why he's supporting the nominee......again.


The COTUS doesn't pick them, they only approve or not. History has shown that theydon't, very often, make it too hard on the POTUS choice. For that reason I prefer Romney doing the nominating.

CitizenOfDreams
06-24-2012, 22:54
Many here are more concerned about "teaching the Republican party a lesson" by staying home or voting third party.

It's a lose/lose situation. If we "teach the Republican party a lesson", we will get a Democrat in the White House. If we don't teach them a lesson, they will keep giving us mccains and romneys.

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 00:02
The COTUS doesn't pick them, they only approve or not. History has shown that theydon't, very often, make it too hard on the POTUS choice. For that reason I prefer Romney doing the nominating.
So he can nominate liberals, like he did in Massachusetts.

barbedwiresmile
06-25-2012, 04:39
I can't think of one thing Barry is better on than Romney.

I can: mobilizing the conservative base.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 05:09
If candidates can be measured on a one-dimensional line, then maybe. But reality isn't that simple. There are many dimensions upon which to rate a candidate, and one is better on some, and the other is better on others. Which one is "better" at the end comes down to a personal choice on which of those dimensions are more important.

So you (general "you") can call one of them "better" by your criteria, but calling others who have different criteria fools, retards, and idiots does not make you come across any smarter.

Reply to the concept, (general "you")

I would not call those that lack the ability to examine a situation & positions, and discern differences fools, retards, or idiots. They can be intelligent and still have an inability to discern differences between humans. No two are exactly alike you ("general" you) know.

If it were a straight line, you'd have Barry on the far left, and Mittens about 3/4 of the way there on what he has done, and about 1/2 the way there based on what he's said he will do.

The differences are there for those with the ability to see them.

Glock30Eric
06-25-2012, 06:02
Welcome back to planet earth.

:headscratch:

I am going to vote Ron Paul in this Nov. if his name remains on the ballot list. If not, I'll re-evaluate the candidates, for sure I will not vote for Romney or Obama.

Anyway, I am trying to chime in that most of you saying we must vote Romney for SCOTUS' stake, which it isn't true. We need to pay more attention to those house reps and senators because they have the final say.

Brucev
06-25-2012, 06:14
Again, dodging the question.

I'm truly curious what conservative principles you subscribe to.

You advocate for Progressive principles here almost daily.

Curious? That's good. Stay curious. You may learn something. But you'll have to be willing to think and not simple react. And you'll have to accept the reality that concepts are not set in concrete.

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 06:23
And you'll have to accept the reality that concepts are not set in concrete.
LOL! :rofl: This is another way of saying you advocate for progressive liberalism, while calling yourself a conservative.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 06:40
LOL! :rofl: This is another way of saying you advocate for progressive liberalism, while calling yourself a conservative.

Not really, at all. Voting for the least progressive guy is a pragmatic choice. Idealists are to be admired, pragmatists are respected, by me anyway. Sometimes hard imperfect choices are the only real choices left. The ballot is not going to look the way I wish it would.

http://emob127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/ballot.jpg

So instead if making a choice in what I wish the ballot would look like, I will make a choice based on what it will actually look like when I get it in my hand.

rgregoryb
06-25-2012, 06:44
I am going to vote Ron Paul in this Nov. if his name remains on the ballot list. If not, I'll re-evaluate the candidates, for sure I will not vote for Romney or Obama.

Anyway, I am trying to chime in that most of you saying we must vote Romney for SCOTUS' stake, which it isn't true. We need to pay more attention to those house reps and senators because they have the final say.

like Obamacare? you really need to pay more attention,

certifiedfunds
06-25-2012, 06:55
Curious? That's good. Stay curious. You may learn something. But you'll have to be willing to think and not simple react. And you'll have to accept the reality that concepts are not set in concrete.

I lied. Not curious at all. A few of us here know precisely what your political slant it. It is entertaining watching you try to don a disguise and move among the crowd.

But your beliefs are strong and you just can't bring yourself to list out a handful of conservative principles you agree with.

We've seen you advocate for higher taxation, collectivism, unfettered democracy, the welfare state and authoritarian government. I thought it would be interesting to see you twist all that into some conservative principles.

certifiedfunds
06-25-2012, 06:56
LOL! :rofl: This is another way of saying you advocate for progressive liberalism, while calling yourself a conservative.

yup..:rofl:

certifiedfunds
06-25-2012, 06:56
I can: mobilizing the conservative base.

zing!

CitizenOfDreams
06-25-2012, 07:03
The ballot is not going to look the way I wish it would.

http://emob127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/ballot.jpg


The ballot box does not have that option. Neither does the soap box.

Skyhook
06-25-2012, 07:05
Obama put his people in place Romney will need to take out O's people and put his people in.

Here's the problem - The Rs try to put in 'compromise' people - the Ds don't, so things keep moving to the left.

That is one hard core fact Republicans and all conservatives need to consider carefully.
Democrat/Progressives resemble the Muslim Brotherhood in that 'no prisoners', 'no compromise' attitude. They are in it to the death. Only in the case of our Dem/Pros we're addressing the death of the USA.

Glock30Eric
06-25-2012, 07:08
like Obamacare? you really need to pay more attention,

I am. I voted house reps and senators that is opposed to Obamacare. However, those candidates never got a chance because Maryland is a blue state. :(

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 08:47
I am. I voted house reps and senators that is opposed to Obamacare. However, those candidates never got a chance because Maryland is a blue state. :(

Then your vote is meaningless and you can vote for Mickey Mouse without making any difference whatsoever.

You really don't matter, do you?:okie:

kirgi08
06-25-2012, 09:31
tagged.

Glock30Eric
06-25-2012, 11:18
Then your vote is meaningless and you can vote for Mickey Mouse without making any difference whatsoever.

You really don't matter, do you?:okie:

LOL, at least I have voted someone that represents me. I will vote Paul because he represents me.