The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: santahog on December 07, 2011, 04:22:46 PM
-
I was looking at a Perry commercial on Youtube an hour or so ago and I couldn't decide which were the nastier bunch of respondents, the RP supporters or the ametuer homosexual advocates, (as opposed to the ones who get paid to do it).. I went over to the RP page on Facebook and said exactly that, and asked them to lighten up a little.. I wasn't mean to them and I didn't suggest who I was a supporter of.
Man! What a freak show... Talk about too much caffene!!! What a nasty bunch!!
-
They're a rabid bunch ain't they?
My nephew, God bless him, is about 28 and every post on his FB account is about the Paul. Most of his family just unsubscribed his account so they don't get a constant news feed!
At least he's standing for something. He's been a conspiracy theorist for some time now though...
-
It's so strange, though!! It's not that he's half right.. He both! He's right on the debt. I'd love to seem over the Fed. (On the other hand, would you like to see Congress in charge of monitary policy??) He's more wrong on Foreign Policy that Jimmy Carter ever was. If it were 1880, I'd say "Great!" We've got our own problems. Jefferson already handled Tripoli anyway and Texas can handle Mexico..
His fans seem to be all kids, though! If they had any idea what it meant to be bound by the limits of the Constitution, they would bleed from their eyes and ears.. Could you see these guys reactions if the President himself had someone shot for Treason?! The Navy blowing up GreenPeace boats for hindering commerce? Please..
-
Ron Paul first ran for President in 1988.
I don't know a single RP supporter who was alive in 1988.
At the time this "beltway outsider" had already been in Congress for 10 years.
Just another "politician" with a slightly different line of BS.
-
Young people are all idealistic, I know I was at that age. When I was 25, I too thought maybe I'd be able to effect a change but that was dashed by the fact that I lived in CT and eventually MA where they breed the sheep! :P
At this point, supporting Ron Paul for these youngsters is more about getting laid on Friday night! He talks a good talk but it's getting old. He pulled in less than a half million votes in the general election last time around, I'd expect he may do better this time but not by much. I have no doubt he'll try and hang round even though he's polling in single digits nearly everywhere, lets hope he doesn't "Perot" the election and hand it to the current Dipshit in Chief!
-
The Paulie's are definitely crackpots. They all say if Ron Paul doesn't win, it doesn't matter who does. They are out there where the buses don't run, that's for sure. The funny part is they actually think he's going to win. Ron Paul is NOT a Republican. He is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Libertarians have always been 10%'ers. That is where Paul is at, and it's where he's going to stay, until he folds up his tent and goes back to Texas a three time loser. Hopefully for good!
-
The Paulie's are definitely crackpots. They all say if Ron Paul doesn't win, it doesn't matter who does. They are out there where the buses don't run, that's for sure. The funny part is they actually think he's going to win. Ron Paul is NOT a Republican. He is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Libertarians have always been 10%'ers. That is where Paul is at, and it's where he's going to stay, until he folds up his tent and goes back to Texas a three SEVEN time loser. Hopefully for good!
FIFY.
You would think he would have took a hint after 5, or run out of $ ???
-
...lets hope he doesn't "Perot" the election and hand it to the current Dipshit in Chief!
Several thoughts spring to mind based on that sentence fragment:
First, Perot did not appreciably affect the '92 election. He may have pulled in 19% of the popular vote, but it didn't change the outcome. If every, single Perot vote went to Bush I (a BIG stretch), he still couldn't have pulled enough electoral votes to win. Bush lost because he urinated on his base during his first term. Remember "Read my lips. 'No new taxes'"? (Brilliant! Promise something you have very little control over.) Remember the '89 import ban? Only a Republican sycophant would blame Perot for Bush's loss as the math just isn't there.
Second, when Obama wins a second term, it will be because the current Republican presidential field is weaker than wet paper mache', not because there are more choices. Honestly, somebody who seriously believes in what Paul believes in can't in good conscience vote for a Mitt or a Newt. They'll just be part of the 45+% that sits this one out.
-
Several thoughts spring to mind based on that sentence fragment:
First, Perot did not appreciably affect the '92 election. He may have pulled in 19% of the popular vote, but it didn't change the outcome. If every, single Perot vote went to Bush I (a BIG stretch), he still couldn't have pulled enough electoral votes to win.
Look at the data here and really analyze the numbers. Perot most definitely affected the outcome of that election. I agree that Bush wouldn't gain all 19.7 million of Perots votes but that race would have been a damn sight closer if Perot had stayed home. If he'd gained even half of those votes in the states that normally would have gone to the GOP, GHW Bush would have had a second term. You need to look at those states individually to see what effect Perot had on the Electoral College.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0
-
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-supporters-crash-mock-newt-gingrichs-party/
WINDHAM, N.H. — A group of Ron Paul supporters staged a satirical protest outside at least two Newt Gingrich events today, pretending to be ardent fans of the former House Speaker while holding signs that criticized his past positions and personal baggage.
They call themselves the Party Crashers (or, they did, when asked if they had a name), and held signs with slogans including “Divorce Lawyers for Newt” and “TARP recipients.”
“We love Newt!” said one, when approached by The Daily Caller and asked who they were with.
“We stand out in the cold for Newt!” echoed another.
“We’re from America. We love America, that’s why we want Newt. He’ll start more wars. We want that,” said a girl with dreadlocks.
The group was reluctant to say which candidate they were actually supporting.
“Do a story on us without knowing who we’re with,” implored one female Crasher. “Please?”
Ads by Google
After some prodding, she finally agreed to give the initials of the candidate her group was in fact supporting: “R.P.”
“We’re with Mitt Romney,” another was overheard saying as they heckled Gingrich event attendees as they streamed out of Windham High School.
The Party Crashers handed out constitutional report cards on which Gingrich earned an F in every single category “so that everybody knows if you really want to destroy the constitution, this is the man,” one girl explained.
Only Ron Paul got straight A’s, a rating the group joking insisted was actually a bad thing.
“We want a Washington insider,” a girl said.
“We like Freddie Mac,” said another.
“He’ll keep the ‘too big to fail’ alive, sucking the last life out of the treasury. And we know that he wants individual mandates,” added another.
“We want to see corruption not only continue, but increase,” insisted one girl.
“And the wars!” another woman chimed in. “We want Syria bombed. And Iran.”
One cheerfully sarcastic Crasher scoffed at Gingrich’s current front-runner status in the polls.
“I don’t think he’s the flavor of the week. I really don’t. I think we’re good,” she said. “I think we’re going to stick, too. Because people are saying he’s the flavor of the week, but he has important people with lots of money and power and influence, so I think he’ll be the nominee.”
In a rare moment of seriousness, another Crasher criticized the former Speaker for not treating his supporters with respect. She noted that the Gingrich campaign had too many people to register for the event.
“They told all 1,200 people that they had seats, and that they just had to show up,” she said, though the venue seated only 650 people.
“We make sure we take care of the people who can take care of us,” she said. “We’re not dumb.”
With that exception, however, everyone the group stayed in character.
“He’s a dirty hippie,” said one girl, referring to a Paul supporter who was mentioned in conversation. “Ron Paul’s a dirty hippie,” she laughed.
The group came together through Meetup, a website that arranges group meetings. “The Meetup for Newt,” joked one. “Newtup! Newt Hampshire.”
“Today was the first day, but we plan to go a lot,” a girl explained. Another added later that her group planned to “increase our numbers” before next month’s New Hampshire primary.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-supporters-crash-mock-newt-gingrichs-party/#ixzz1gifaQdH2
-
If he'd gained even half of those votes in the states that normally would have gone to the GOP, GHW Bush would have had a second term. You need to look at those states individually to see what effect Perot had on the Electoral College.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Which states, specifically, are you referring to in the first sentence quoted above? Don't forget that ol' Billy was a good ol' Southern boy, which probably influenced some of the Southern states.
I will concede that my "all" statement above was a bit over the top. I thought this article did a pretty good job of analyzing the election. http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640 (http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640)
BTW--I welcome the discussion. In all the years I've asked somebody to back up their opinion on this, you're the first one that did so, and you didn't shriek like the Wicked Witch getting hit with water. Thank you.
-
Which states, specifically, are you referring to in the first sentence quoted above? Don't forget that ol' Billy was a good ol' Southern boy, which probably influenced some of the Southern states.
I will concede that my "all" statement above was a bit over the top. I thought this article did a pretty good job of analyzing the election. http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640 (http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640)
BTW--I welcome the discussion. In all the years I've asked somebody to back up their opinion on this, you're the first one that did so, and you didn't shriek like the Wicked Witch getting hit with water. Thank you.
No problem!
Take the east and west coast out of the equation, as they're normally going to be lefty anyway. and hover your mouse over the map I linked to. A flag will come up and give you the percentage of popular vote per candidate. You'll find that there probably isn't one state that Clinton received 50% of the electorate. Given that the close states like MN, MI, WI, OH, IA, PA and a spread of western states that have smaller Electoral College votes, Perot was getting 18-28% of the vote, Bush could have easily managed to gain the 102 Electoral votes he needed to beat Slick Willy!
I lived in CT for that election and I don't know one person that voted for Clinton other than my brother. We had some real animated conversations over those years. ;)
All I'm saying is that it's plausible that if Ross Perot hadn't flown in with his elephant ears and muddied the waters, the entire history of US politics could have been changed forever! Instead, we have a blue Gap dress headed for the Smithsonian someday to reside next to Arthur Fonzerellis' leather jacket while paying for two decades of bad economic decisions initiated, in part, by one of the more deceitful men to ever hold the office.
And you're welcome for the lack of a hissy fit!
:D
p.s. I did read your article link and don't agree with it and I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College.
-
When I was in High School and I read about the Electoral College, I wondered what function it could possibly serve.
All I could come up with is that it was instituted as a final check by hopefully wise people to prevent "The People" from electing a disastrous president.
I had mixed emotions about it at that time, but figured it was good to have that kind of backup.
Lot of good it did us.
-
Would it make more sense if the Electors were able to cast their ballots based on the District results?
My understanding as to why it was created was that the leaders of the day didn't think that the common citizen knew enough about the government to cast an educated ballot!
I see little in the last fifty years to support the contrary! I'm surrounded by clueless, ignorant people on a daily basis! They're not stupid, they just don't want to engage the real issues and try and effect a change.
Finding 38 states to agree on anything these days is hard enough! Get that and you have a Constitutional Amendment to be rid of the EC. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon...Besides, there has only been one election in the last 110 years that the EC didn't follow the popular vote! Personally, I'm damn glad that Al Gore never became the POTUS!
-
Getting rid of the EC could happen, especially these days. I promise I'll do what I can to stop any real move to try it, though..
-
A couple things I did not see in discussion of the "Electoral college".
First off, reread the Constitution, The president was not elected by the population.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
Article II - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
Another thing is that, at the time the above was adopted not everyone was allowed to vote, most, if not all, States had a "Property requirement", that stipulated a man had to possess property in excess of X value in order to be an eligible voter.
This last continued at least through the Depression as those "on the town" were not allowed to vote, or buy booze or tobacco.
In these discussions most never understand that the Country was not created as a "Democracy", but as a Republic, and there is a difference.
See my signature line.
-
p.s. I did read your article link and don't agree with it and I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College.
I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College either. I was referring to their analysis of states that were close.
I guess my issue is that folks always blame Perot for honestly doing what he thought was right. Nobody ever brings up the fact that Bush I lost a whole lot of support by himself. Nobody brings up the fact that Clinton, like him or not, was charasmatic. In my opinion, all of these had an effect on that election.
-
If you abolish the Elctoral College, you might as well abolish the Senate. They serve the same purpose, to ensure that we are a FEDERAL republic. Its a state's right's thing. Now, there are good arguments to support doing both, but I don't find them convincing. Keeping the smaller states happy and preventing them from being swamped by the large urban centers on the coast seems prudent.
FQ13
-
Finding 38 states to agree on anything these days is hard enough! Get that and you have a Constitutional Amendment to be rid of the EC. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon...Besides, there has only been one election in the last 110 years that the EC didn't follow the popular vote! Personally, I'm damn glad that Al Gore never became the POTUS!
After the 2000 election there was considerable sturm und drang about getting rid of the EC, with lots of "commitment" to its abolition - Hitlery was one of the most passionate about it.
Obviously it would be impossible to get all of the necessary states to do that, so the lefties followed another attack with some success. Almost under the radar, about a dozen state legislatures have changed the rules for the allocation of Electors. These states now require the electors to cast their vote based solely on the winner of the national popular vote. Different tactic, same result.
-
Sigh....it doesn't matter what system of checks and balances is put in place....they all depend upon being run by "honest" people.
And we seem to have eliminated our ability to ensure the "dishonest" are kept out.....Tar and Feathering, Hanging and Shooting them is out of favor. More early age indoctrination.
Now days people "mis-speak" instead of lie.
-
After the 2000 election there was considerable sturm und drang about getting rid of the EC, with lots of "commitment" to its abolition - Hitlery was one of the most passionate about it.
Obviously it would be impossible to get all of the necessary states to do that, so the lefties followed another attack with some success. Almost under the radar, about a dozen state legislatures have changed the rules for the allocation of Electors. These states now require the electors to cast their vote based solely on the winner of the national popular vote. Different tactic, same result.
True, but its still Constitutional. Remember, there is no requirement to even have a popular vote for President. The state's are well within their rights to allow the Legislature to select the EC delegates. It won't happen, but it could. Likewise, most states require EC delegates to follow the state's vote. Again, a "roque" delegate would arguably be within the purview of the Constititution. Tom printed out Article II. It says the states would select the EC delegates. There is no requirement, beyond state law that they vote the way they were instructed to, as state law is preempted by the Constitution in this case.
FQ13
-
.......... Could you see these guys reactions if the President himself had someone shot for Treason?! The Navy blowing up GreenPeace boats for hindering commerce? Please..
In a perfect world....... 8)
-
I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College either. I was referring to their analysis of states that were close.
I guess my issue is that folks always blame Perot for honestly doing what he thought was right. Nobody ever brings up the fact that Bush I lost a whole lot of support by himself. Nobody brings up the fact that Clinton, like him or not, was charasmatic. In my opinion, all of these had an effect on that election.
Agreed...my wife, and her entire family in MA, voted for Perot as is their right!
No doubt he shot himself in the foot but its not about one sound bite and the public (and the left) pounced on that!
Snake Oil Salesman...
-
Agreed...my wife, and her entire family in MA, voted for Perot as is their right!
No doubt he shot himself in the foot but its not about one sound bite and the public (and the left) pounced on that!
Snake Oil Salesman...
Tim, I voted for Perot, not because of "No new taxes" but because of the machinegun law.
Another reason was because Perot tried to explain exactly what he would do and how.
Now people joke about his charts and graphs but the sad truth is that Perot lost in large part because the voters, who have the attention span of a chipmunk, prefer to be BSed in sound bites rather than missing"Dancing with the Stars to actually be informed.
There were other things that contributed to Perot's defeat, but the primary problem is that the average citizen is not competent enough to wipe their own ass with out instructions.
-
There were other things that contributed to Perot's defeat, but the primary problem is that the average citizen is not competent enough to wipe their own ass with out instructions.
I keep mine written on the back of my left hand! I wipe with the right!
;D
Like Ron Paul in all of his bids, Perot wasn't gonna win that election and the country, so far, won't support a third party candidate. I didn't hate Perot and I don't think that I've said that in any of my posts. Correct me if I have...
-
I keep mine written on the back of my left hand! I wipe with the right!
;D
Like Ron Paul in all of his bids, Perot wasn't gonna win that election and the country, so far, won't support a third party candidate. I didn't hate Perot and I don't think that I've said that in any of my posts. Correct me if I have...
His chance was in the primaries.
-
His chance was in the primaries.
Didn't he run under the Independent and Reform party?
-
IIRC he ran in the primaries as an R to get on the ballot since 3rd parties don't have primaries.
-
Another reason I voted for Perot was the way he handled rescuing his EDS employees after Tehran fell. If you haven't read Ken Follett's non-fiction account of it in On Wings of Eagles, you owe it to yourself.
Oh, and Bush I still got my state's electoral votes, so don't tell me my vote went to Clinton... :)
-
Soldier of Fortune carried a series of articles of the rescue based on interviews with Bull Simmons
-
I keep mine written on the back of my left hand! I wipe with the right!
;D
That's kinda why the Muslims get ticked off if you're left handed. They won't shake your left hand because they wipe with theirs and don't want to touch yours.. TP and hand washing haven't filtered into the religion yet, I guess..
(That said, I wasn't thrilled to have to eat their cooking..)
-
Tim, I voted for Perot, not because of "No new taxes" but because of the machinegun law.
Another reason was because Perot tried to explain exactly what he would do and how.
Now people joke about his charts and graphs but the sad truth is that Perot lost in large part because the voters, who have the attention span of a chipmunk, prefer to be BSed in sound bites rather than missing"Dancing with the Stars to actually be informed.
There were other things that contributed to Perot's defeat, but the primary problem is that the average citizen is not competent enough to wipe their own ass with out instructions.
-
The person who still supports Paul or Johnson is not competent enough to wipe their own ass with out instructions.
Go ahead and vote for a loser, we'll know who to thank if Obama wins.
-
The person who still supports Paul or Johnson is not competent enough to wipe their own ass with out instructions.
Go ahead and vote for a loser, we'll know who to thank if Obama wins.
+ 1,000 !
I'm so sick and tired of listening to these total ass wipes drone on and on with,.......Liberty ! Constitution!, blah blah, blah. And don't forget there never ending cry that "There is no difference" between Romney and Hussein. I wish they'd all go drown themselves. Everyone of them should win a sleep over at Andrea Yates house !
-
+ 1,000 !
I'm so sick and tired of listening to these total ass wipes drone on and on with,.......Liberty ! Constitution!, blah blah, blah. And don't forget there never ending cry that "There is no difference" between Romney and Hussein. I wish they'd all go drown themselves. Everyone of them should win a sleep over at Andrea Yates house !
You have complete agreement from this Rabbit. Romney is most assuredly not exactly what I would like. But, he took a big step up the ladder when he chose Paul Ryan.
That said, he happens to be our only chance to dethrone the anointed one in November.
I, for one, will happily accept "less than perfect" to get rid of "perfectly awful"
Crusader
-
You have complete agreement from this Rabbit. Romney is most assuredly not exactly what I would like. But, he took a big step up the ladder when he chose Paul Ryan.
That said, he happens to be our only chance to dethrone the anointed one in November.
I, for one, will happily accept "less than perfect" to get rid of "perfectly awful"
Crusader
That is spot-on, CR..... spot-on the reason I support Romney/Ryan.
-
You have complete agreement from this Rabbit. Romney is most assuredly not exactly what I would like. But, he took a big step up the ladder when he chose Paul Ryan.
That said, he happens to be our only chance to dethrone the anointed one in November.
I, for one, will happily accept "less than perfect" to get rid of "perfectly awful"
Crusader
That is spot-on, CR..... spot-on the reason I support Romney/Ryan.
a'yup!
-
Well, that makes 5 that think Georgie is an idiot for continuing to beat the dead horse of Paul's 4th and final campaign.
-
You have complete agreement from this Rabbit. Romney is most assuredly not exactly what I would like. But, he took a big step up the ladder when he chose Paul Ryan.
That said, he happens to be our only chance to dethrone the anointed one in November.
I, for one, will happily accept "less than perfect" to get rid of "perfectly awful"
Crusader
Actually, this i completely irrelevant now. The damage is so pervasive no one will be able to undo it. Remember what happened to W when he tried to fire the US Attorneys - who reported to him through the DOJ and served only at his discretion? Imagine the hundreds of thousands of bho-fanatics now infesting the .gov.
Romney will do little to turn the tide, a lot of .gov stuff will go under the covers, and life (in DC) will go on as always. The .gov and TPTB will protect themselves. Think I'm wrong? Ask JFK.
Besides, assuming you're right and bho loses, you're forgetting the whole 2 months that bho has to royally eff us over before he leaves. If he does leave.
-
(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz50/billt460/Bilderberg.jpg)
-
Actually, this i completely irrelevant now. The damage is so pervasive no one will be able to undo it. Remember what happened to W when he tried to fire the US Attorneys - who reported to him through the DOJ and served only at his discretion? Imagine the hundreds of thousands of bho-fanatics now infesting the .gov.
Romney will do little to turn the tide, a lot of .gov stuff will go under the covers, and life (in DC) will go on as always. The .gov and TPTB will protect themselves. Think I'm wrong? Ask JFK.
Besides, assuming you're right and bho loses, you're forgetting the whole 2 months that bho has to royally eff us over before he leaves. If he does leave.
These bastards have been digging in in politics and education since the 30's
I've been staying positive, and not saying much about what we REALLY need to do.
But if Romney loses we will wind up going to guns with in 4 years max.
Hopefully in the "lame duck" session he will be to busy trying to fight the results to screw us to badly. :-\
-
I really don't have a problem with Ron Paul in general terms. Once upon a time, he and I were on similar career paths! I tried very hard in my youth to examine as many vaginas that I could under extreme circumstances!
;D ;D
-
Well, that makes 5 that think Georgie is an idiot for continuing to beat the dead horse of Paul's 4th and final campaign.
Doesn't really matter to me what any of you think.
If one didn't think the Feds were that stupid, one would surmise you are nothing but a federal informant based on the comments you have posted in the past. Really. You are straight out of central casting for sure.
But you can call me names all you want Tommie "The Internet Pussy" Bogan if that makes you feel better. I'll let you get back to inciting others to murder politicians and other "patriotic" activities...
-
I really don't have a problem with Ron Paul in general terms. Once upon a time, he and I were on similar career paths! I tried very hard in my youth to examine as many vaginas that I could under extreme circumstances!
;D ;D
Tim that's pretty funny!
For the record, the Ron Paul thing is a dead issue to me. I put that quote there for other reasons. It must have struck a nerve with little Tommie though.
-
George, who are you voting for?
-
George,
I don't think I've ever offended you! Forgive me if I have!
We are what we are, Americans with opinions! Can you imagine the debates that took place whilst writing our great Constitution?
Sometimes our opinions differ but whenever we take things too seriously, the debate suffers! We all need to get beyond that and remember that this country matters most and it's derailment into European socialism is what unites us and makes us fight harder to prevent the descent into the depths! I think that if we all come to a common, ideological center and commit to the common good of the country, we can all eventually overcome!
Tom may be a pain in the ass but, he's our pain in the ass! I'd much rather have him on my side then the alternative!
Respectfully submitted...
T
-
I say what I think, and unless I state it is an opinion I will back it with references.
I don't particularly care who I offend, nor do I concern myself with consequences.
If others lack the courage to do the same that is between them and their self respect.
If they have any.
George is simply being his sissified troll self because I made reference to his former heroic departure as "FullAuto" as a matter of full disclosure on MB blog since he thought it was appropriate to call me an asshole , which childishness I called him on.
Since he isn't actually bright enough to engage in sarcasm he has to resort to name calling.
I'm really surprised he took time from his bromance with that phony Cline.
-
George,
I don't think I've ever offended you! Forgive me if I have!
We are what we are, Americans with opinions! Can you imagine the debates that took place whilst writing our great Constitution?
Sometimes our opinions differ but whenever we take things too seriously, the debate suffers! We all need to get beyond that and remember that this country matters most and it's derailment into European socialism is what unites us and makes us fight harder to prevent the descent into the depths! I think that if we all come to a common, ideological center and commit to the common good of the country, we can all eventually overcome!
Tom may be a pain in the ass but, he's our pain in the ass! I'd much rather have him on my side then the alternative!
Respectfully submitted...
T
Timothy, you are fine with me. We have had our differences of opinion on stuff before, but I have never had an issue with you personally. In fact I'm fine with everyone here, except Tom. I realize you guys like Tom, and that's fine with me too. Though I think he acts like a little punk, I think he's capable of carrying his own water - y'all don't need to defend him. Oh well....
BTW, I really thought your comment about Paul above was really funny. I wasn't being sarcastic. LOL! You come with good one liners on occasion. I remember you tagged me pretty good about a topic I posted on whether a 300 Winchester Magnum is too much for deer hunting or something like that. You pointed out the irony since I advocate the liberalization of laws on select fire weapons. I really thought it was dead-on and I got a good chuckle about it too. 8)
For Mr. BillT:
I plan to vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I have to tell you from my conscience I can not bring myself to vote for Mitt Romney. And despite what y'all say, a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama. If I could vote for VP separately, like they did way back when, I would vote for Paul Ryan; he's close enough for me. But like others posted, we don't get to vote for VP, we have to vote for the package deal. That is a deal breaker for me.
For those who do vote for R/R, I think you are going to be very disappointed should Romney be elected. I really do think this guy will sell us down the river on gun rights. The reason is he sees other issues facing the nation being far more important. And if he can get a deal with the Dems (who currently hold serve in the Senate), to get these bigger issues take care of he'll do it. Our gun rights just might be collateral damage - a risk he is willing to take.
I haven't written specifically about this before, but I have alluded to it. If BHO wins, it's not necessarily the end of the world for gun rights. When he was elected, I saw a galvanization among gun owners like I have not seen before. If you think about it, there wasn't much chirping about whether we really needed "assault weapons" or what the definition of "standard" vs. "high capacity" magazines are. We knew we had to fight and win at all costs - and we did. We did not give one freakin' inch and we won. If Romney gets in, the whole triangulation schemes will start. With Obama in office, he will be met with a tsunami of opposition that he will be hard pressed to ignore.
Bill, I know you asked a simple question. But I thought I needed to give a more detailed answer, so I apologize for the length. I know you will not be happy with my decision, but I have to be honest with you and stand by my principles. I told Michael Bane in a PM that I will "not get in the car" to go along for the ride. I will walk home, even alone, if necessary.
-
I have been a Card Carrying and Dues Paying member of the Libertarian Party for over 21 years.
While I don't agree with 100% of the Libertarian Party platform it is close. I do believe that the principals of Libertarian Party are closer to the principals our Constitution was founded upon than what either the Democratic Party or Republican Party have to offer...by a very large margin. In general both of those parties are working against the our country.
In those 21 years I have voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate 19 times. The two other votes were for George W. in his first election and for McCain in BHO's first election.
Both of those times I felt the threat of a continued Clinton administration with the election of Gore and the election of BHO, whom I saw as the biggest threat to our way of life during my lifetime overwhelmed the benefits of voting Libertarian. Both of those times I voted Republican as the lesser of two evils...and by far the lesser where BHO is involved.
Even though the chance of a Libertarian victory was slight during the years I voted Libertarian, it was not a wasted vote because it aided the party in getting ballot access in the years following and it did help the "numbers".
I hear folks talk about how bad the RINOs are and how poor a job the Republican Party does after being elected, but they still vote republican...thinking, maybe, that doing the same thing over and over will have different results.
I see the Libertarian party as the only way to get this country back on track. The differences I have with them are only a small part of their platform, all be it some major issues for me...and for other non-Libertarians here.
This year will be the third year I do not vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate. While I think Gary Johnson is the best hope of getting our country repaired, I will vote for the Republican candidate, who, it appears, will be Romney, and has the best chance of defeating BHO. It is not that I don't believe the Republicans are as bad for the country as the Democrats, I just think the Republicans are doing it slower.
The point is that, while I believe the Libertarian Party is our best chance of repairing our "Ship of State", I think it will not happen this election and I fear that another term of BHO will leave that Ship at the bottom of the bay and far more likely irreversibly beyond repair.
Perhaps if we weather this storm, it will be the time to stand on principal, but, for me, I'll reach for the life preserver I have available.
-
I have been a Card Carrying and Dues Paying member of the Libertarian Party for over 21 years.
While I don't agree with 100% of the Libertarian Party platform it is close. I do believe that the principals of Libertarian Party are closer to the principals our Constitution was founded upon than what either the Democratic Party or Republican Party have to offer...by a very large margin. In general both of those parties are working against the our country.
In those 21 years I have voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate 19 times. The two other votes were for George W. in his first election and for McCain in BHO's first election.
Both of those times I felt the threat of a continued Clinton administration with the election of Gore and the election of BHO, whom I saw as the biggest threat to our way of life during my lifetime overwhelmed the benefits of voting Libertarian. Both of those times I voted Republican as the lesser of two evils...and by far the lesser where BHO is involved.
Even though the chance of a Libertarian victory was slight during the years I voted Libertarian, it was not a wasted vote because it aided the party in getting ballot access in the years following and it did help the "numbers".
I hear folks talk about how bad the RINOs are and how poor a job the Republican Party does after being elected, but they still vote republican...thinking, maybe, that doing the same thing over and over will have different results.
I see the Libertarian party as the only way to get this country back on track. The differences I have with them are only a small part of their platform, all be it some major issues for me...and for other non-Libertarians here.
This year will be the third year I do not vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate. While I think Gary Johnson is the best hope of getting our country repaired, I will vote for the Republican candidate, who, it appears, will be Romney, and has the best chance of defeating BHO. It is not that I don't believe the Republicans are as bad for the country as the Democrats, I just think the Republicans are doing it slower.
The point is that, while I believe the Libertarian Party is our best chance of repairing our "Ship of State", I think it will not happen this election and I fear that another term of BHO will leave that Ship at the bottom of the bay and far more likely irreversibly beyond repair.
Perhaps if we weather this storm, it will be the time to stand on principal, but, for me, I'll reach for the life preserver I have available.
Well put.
-
I have been a Card Carrying and Dues Paying member of the Libertarian Party for over 21 years.
While I don't agree with 100% of the Libertarian Party platform it is close. I do believe that the principals of Libertarian Party are closer to the principals our Constitution was founded upon than what either the Democratic Party or Republican Party have to offer...by a very large margin. In general both of those parties are working against the our country.
In those 21 years I have voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate 19 times. The two other votes were for George W. in his first election and for McCain in BHO's first election.
Both of those times I felt the threat of a continued Clinton administration with the election of Gore and the election of BHO, whom I saw as the biggest threat to our way of life during my lifetime overwhelmed the benefits of voting Libertarian. Both of those times I voted Republican as the lesser of two evils...and by far the lesser where BHO is involved.
Even though the chance of a Libertarian victory was slight during the years I voted Libertarian, it was not a wasted vote because it aided the party in getting ballot access in the years following and it did help the "numbers".
I hear folks talk about how bad the RINOs are and how poor a job the Republican Party does after being elected, but they still vote republican...thinking, maybe, that doing the same thing over and over will have different results.
I see the Libertarian party as the only way to get this country back on track. The differences I have with them are only a small part of their platform, all be it some major issues for me...and for other non-Libertarians here.
This year will be the third year I do not vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate. While I think Gary Johnson is the best hope of getting our country repaired, I will vote for the Republican candidate, who, it appears, will be Romney, and has the best chance of defeating BHO. It is not that I don't believe the Republicans are as bad for the country as the Democrats, I just think the Republicans are doing it slower.
The point is that, while I believe the Libertarian Party is our best chance of repairing our "Ship of State", I think it will not happen this election and I fear that another term of BHO will leave that Ship at the bottom of the bay and far more likely irreversibly beyond repair.
Perhaps if we weather this storm, it will be the time to stand on principal, but, for me, I'll reach for the life preserver I have available.
I thought that was a very well reasoned post. Though I don't come to the same conclusion, I can respect it. Thanks! 8)
-
For Mr. BillT:
I plan to vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I have to tell you from my conscience I can not bring myself to vote for Mitt Romney. And despite what y'all say, a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama. If I could vote for VP separately, like they did way back when, I would vote for Paul Ryan; he's close enough for me. But like others posted, we don't get to vote for VP, we have to vote for the package deal. That is a deal breaker for me.
Then vote for him. What better way to elevate his political career, than to help him capture the Vice Presidency? It will all but assure him of a Presidential candidacy, assuming Romney gets elected to 2 terms. Instead, you are ready, willing, and able to waste your vote on someone who has zero chance of winning. And you will accomplish nothing by doing it, except help the idiot we now have to get reelected. I've never understood why Ron Paul supporters are so dense as to understand the way our political system works. Or else they don't care. This is why people like Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates will never poll more than 9%. 91% of the American voters are smarter, and understand that continuing to vote for losing candidates only accomplishes that the worst possible candidate wins, (Democrat). When freedoms are lost, we'll have you guys to thank for helping to make that possible.
-
Then vote for him. What better way to elevate his political career, than to help him capture the Vice Presidency? It will all but assure him of a Presidential candidacy, assuming Romney gets elected to 2 terms. Instead, you are ready, willing, and able to waste your vote on someone who has zero chance of winning. And you will accomplish nothing by doing it, except help the idiot we now have to get reelected. I've never understood why Ron Paul supporters are so dense as to understand the way our political system works. Or else they don't care. This is why people like Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates will never poll more than 9%. 91% of the American voters are smarter, and understand that continuing to vote for losing candidates only accomplishes that the worst possible candidate wins, (Democrat). When freedoms are lost, we'll have you guys to thank for helping to make that possible.
I have to disagree, Bill.
A vote for Johnson will accomplish things to further the goals of the Libertarian Party. In this election, however, I believe the gains made for the LP are far outweighed by the damage a BHO re-election will do.
Also, I see it as the American voters are dumber. If every voter who held their nose to vote for a Republican or Democrat who they could not respect voted instead for the Libertarian candidate that candidate could well be elected....and if that practice had gone on for a decade or more, they, for sure, would be causing the other parties to change their platforms to stop loosing votes.
What happens instead is that the American voter believes that by doing the same thing over and over, things will somehow come out differently.
The problem is that a swing to a third party takes some time...and this is not the election to work for an incremental gain for the LP.
The following is a quote from a Douglas Adams novel. Replace Lizards with Politicians and it works in the US. I have seen enough here to know that most think the great majority of politicians are low enough to be considered lizards.
On this world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
-
None of it matters as long as you have the Electoral College in place. They elect the President, not the people. Even Perot who did the best among third party candidates in modern times, did not receive a single Electoral Vote. The Electoral College is not going away anytime soon. There are not enough Electoral Votes in play to split it three ways and still have the necessary 270 required to win the Presidency.
-
The last time there was a 3 way split was 1824.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h262.html
-
You must not forget that in many states ( ca for example) the ec is winner take all. so a 3rd party could cost the election, by just effecting 1 state.
-
None of it matters as long as you have the Electoral College in place. They elect the President, not the people. Even Perot who did the best among third party candidates in modern times, did not receive a single Electoral Vote. The Electoral College is not going away anytime soon. There are not enough Electoral Votes in play to split it three ways and still have the necessary 270 required to win the Presidency.
I also remember that after the two Perot runs that the Republicans made a big deal about becoming very much more "small government" and other policies that I associate with the Libertarian Party.
They didn't stick with it though because there was no pressure to do so after Perot was gone and everyone was back to voting for the two Establishment Parties.
-
You must not forget that in many states ( ca for example) the ec is winner take all. so a 3rd party could cost the election, by just effecting 1 state.
A number of states have also mandated that their EC votes go to the NATIONAL winner of the popular vote, regardless of the state's own results.
-
I know how much Ron Paul is loved around here ( ;) ) so I knew it would be fitting if I posted the piece the RNC did for Ron Paul at the convention:
I know they are just throwing him a bone, but it was nice to see Jim DeMint and a few others talk about his impact.
-
Ron Paul is a phony who never intended to win.
If he had he never would have mentioned his drug policy that after 80+ years of indoctrination was guaranteed to alienate enough people to keep him from having to do any work.
He's just a con man sucking in donations from chumps.
As for a "tribute", that's just something to pacify the dumb people who can't comprehend that if you can't win against your own party it's a waste of time to run you against the other party.
-
Ron Paul is a phony who never intended to win.
If he had he never would have mentioned his drug policy that after 80+ years of indoctrination was guaranteed to alienate enough people to keep him from having to do any work.
He's just a con man sucking in donations from chumps.
As for a "tribute", that's just something to pacify the dumb people who can't comprehend that if you can't win against your own party it's a waste of time to run you against the other party.
LMAO..... ::)
-
Ron Paul is a phony who never intended to win.
If he had he never would have mentioned his drug policy that after 80+ years of indoctrination was guaranteed to alienate enough people to keep him from having to do any work.
He's just a con man sucking in donations from chumps.
As for a "tribute", that's just something to pacify the dumb people who can't comprehend that if you can't win against your own party it's a waste of time to run you against the other party.
All true. The first and foremost job of ANY political candidate, regardless of party, is to get elected. It is extremely easy to say the wrong thing when you are trying not to. Hussein's, "You didn't build that!" is a perfect example. Whenever Ron Paul spoke he'd stick his foot in his mouth. It was as if he was trying not to get elected.
A lot of his lock step followers were all dumb enough to think, "He's just being honest!" In reality he was just being an idiot. For a guy that spent 30 years in government, he sure as hell didn't learn much, if anything. Except of course for earning a living and a big fat pension. All on the taxpayers dime.
-
All true. The first and foremost job of ANY political candidate, regardless of party, is to get elected. It is extremely easy to say the wrong thing when you are trying not to. Hussein's, "You didn't build that!" is a perfect example. Whenever Ron Paul spoke he'd stick his foot in his mouth. It was as if he was trying not to get elected.
A lot of his lock step followers were all dumb enough to think, "He's just being honest!" In reality he was just being an idiot. For a guy that spent 30 years in government, he sure as hell didn't learn much, if anything. Except of course for earning a living and a big fat pension. All on the taxpayers dime.
Awwww, Bill... You're just calling Dr. Paul a freeloading, run-of-the-mill political hack 'cause it's true.
Sheesh... When are the sheeple going to have enough of this crapola and relegate Ron Paul to the dustbin of history?
Crusader Rabbit
-
Awwww, Bill... You're just calling Dr. Paul a freeloading, run-of-the-mill political hack 'cause it's true.
Sheesh... When are the sheeple going to have enough of this crapola and relegate Ron Paul to the dustbin of history?
Crusader Rabbit
Like William Jennings Bryan ?
He had one speech that went over well and he gave it over and over.
-
Ron Paul supporters are the ultimate sheep. They all run around quoting Patrick Henry, exclaiming LIBERTY!! in every sentence they write. Most are still in mommies basement, and wouldn't even be on the Internet if she wasn't paying their DSL bill.
-
All true. The first and foremost job of ANY political candidate, regardless of party, is to get elected. It is extremely easy to say the wrong thing when you are trying not to. Hussein's, "You didn't build that!" is a perfect example. Whenever Ron Paul spoke he'd stick his foot in his mouth. It was as if he was trying not to get elected.
As a card carrying Libertarian, I read their newsletter and much of the internal debate is about why the party sticks to their platform even though some portion or another will be viewed unfavorable by some portion of the voting populace.
Their answer is that they believe the Party was formed based upon the same principles the Founding Fathers believed when they created the Constitution.
The answer to the debate comes down to: Do we want to do what it takes to be elected or do we want to stand by our principals and do what we think is right.?
It is still a tough question. You can't do what you think is right if you don't get elected....
Their decision is reflected in their motto The Party of Principle
One area where they have "backed off" of principal a bit is the issue of matching campaign funds.
On principle, they don't believe the government should be taxing at anywhere near the current rates. Even further, they sure don't believe the government should be using the money they do collect in taxes to pay for anyone's campaign for office.
Since their opponents get a great advantage by doubling their 'war chest' and since members of the Libertarian Party are paying taxes like everyone else, they leave it up to the individual candidate to decide whether to take the matching funds or not.
True, it might be foolish to not "play the political game" and choose your policies based upon which way the wind is blowing, but then then that is what many dislike about almost all of the incumbents.
-
Do the Dems talk about how they are going to tax you out of your shorts ?
Do the Republicans make an issue of they fact they will be less hostile to "Faith based" organizations ?
Of course not, any one with a shred of sense knows that those things will alienate a certain percentage who might otherwise support them.
Any one who is not willing to "do what it takes to get elected" is nothing but a blow hard wasting the time and money of chumps.
The point of a campaign is to gain more votes than the other guy.
You craft your message to appeal to the widest audience .
Any one with half a brain understands that political "principles" don't amount to a piss hole in the snow if you can't get elected.
-
Do the Dems talk about how they are going to tax you out of your shorts ?
Do the Republicans make an issue of they fact they will be less hostile to "Faith based" organizations ?
Of course not, any one with a shred of sense knows that those things will alienate a certain percentage who might otherwise support them.
Any one who is not willing to "do what it takes to get elected" is nothing but a blow hard wasting the time and money of chumps.
The point of a campaign is to gain more votes than the other guy.
You craft your message to appeal to the widest audience .
Any one with half a brain understands that political "principles" don't amount to a piss hole in the snow if you can't get elected.
I really can't argue to much with that...you can't be effective if you don't get elected...
But all I can say is.....see where it has gotten us?
And I guess as long as Idiots are voting, it won't change
P.S. and I did not mean anyone here was in that category....but the 'sheep'...(but maybe fish is better)...who swallow the BS hook, line and sinker.
-
Actually the idiots vote along with the variously intelligent voters as well. The problem is, we are all mesmerized by the astounding lack of difference between the available candidates for President. To get there you can't have an agenda, you can't ever offend anyone, and you have to have as much money behind you as God does on a friday afternoon. That makes for a bunch of poor choices. The sad converse to that is that anyone who is different (like Paul) is viewed as unworthy simply because he has not achieved the astounding ass-hat status of the "real"candidates. It's a lazy, broken system that is self defeating and keeps us all paying the tab for the political class.
-
Actually the idiots vote along with the variously intelligent voters as well. The problem is, we are all mesmerized by the astounding lack of difference between the available candidates for President. To get there you can't have an agenda, you can't ever offend anyone, and you have to have as much money behind you as God does on a friday afternoon. That makes for a bunch of poor choices. The sad converse to that is that anyone who is different (like Paul) is viewed as unworthy simply because he has not achieved the astounding ass-hat status of the "real"candidates. It's a lazy, broken system that is self defeating and keeps us all paying the tab for the political class.
We like our Lizards. :(
-
We like our Lizards. :(
Well everybody else thinks your "lizard" is an asshole.
Otherwise he would have won the primaries and he would have gotten nominated.
It's really pretty simple.
Come the General Election you have 2 choices, The American who will not be perfect since he is human, or the Communist.
Any one who votes for any democrat is supporting the communist agenda and Any one who has not learned their lesson after FDR, LBJ, carter, Clinton, and Obama deserves the result of that.
Any one who votes "Third Party" or write in is wasting every ones time and supporting the communist agenda by taking votes away from the American, they also deserve the results.
-
Well everybody else thinks your "lizard" is an asshole.
Otherwise he would have won the primaries and he would have gotten nominated.
It's really pretty simple.
Come the General Election you have 2 choices, The American who will not be perfect since he is human, or the Communist.
Any one who votes for any democrat is supporting the communist agenda and Any one who has not learned their lesson after FDR, LBJ, carter, Clinton, and Obama deserves the result of that.
Any one who votes "Third Party" or write in is wasting every ones time and supporting the communist agenda by taking votes away from the American, they also deserve the results.
Oh..I'm not particularly a Ron Paul fan....and for sure not in this election....for all the reasons we've listed.
But in more 'normal' times a strong showing by a more Tea-Partyish or Libertarian candidate will have the lizards starting to change their tunes to re-capture those votes. And they'll go back to the old Song and Dance as soon as they are sure they have them again.
-
Well everybody else thinks your "lizard" is an asshole.
Otherwise he would have won the primaries and he would have gotten nominated.
It's really pretty simple.
Come the General Election you have 2 choices, The American who will not be perfect since he is human, or the Communist.
Any one who votes for any democrat is supporting the communist agenda and Any one who has not learned their lesson after FDR, LBJ, carter, Clinton, and Obama deserves the result of that.
Any one who votes "Third Party" or write in is wasting every ones time and supporting the communist agenda by taking votes away from the American, they also deserve the results.
Very well said! Consider it stolen. ;D
-
......
Any one who votes "Third Party" or write in is wasting every ones time and supporting the communist agenda by taking votes away from the American, they also deserve the results.
.......
Thank you for the reminder.
And this comes from the one who voted for Ross Perot. Thanks again: by casting your vote for someone who had no chance to win, brought us the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Feel real proud of yourself, sport.
-
................brought us the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Feel real proud of yourself, sport.
Which has been gone for how many years now?? ::)
-
Well everybody else thinks your "lizard" is an asshole.
Otherwise he would have won the primaries and he would have gotten nominated.
It's really pretty simple.
Come the General Election you have 2 choices, The American who will not be perfect since he is human, or the Communist.
Any one who votes for any democrat is supporting the communist agenda and Any one who has not learned their lesson after FDR, LBJ, carter, Clinton, and Obama deserves the result of that.
Any one who votes "Third Party" or write in is wasting every ones time and supporting the communist agenda by taking votes away from the American, they also deserve the results.
I agree. The problem is that the rest of us have to live through the results of their asshattery, as well.
-
Which has been gone for how many years now?? ::)
Completely irrelevant, Bill. We had to endure 10 years of that decision. You guys can't have it both ways on this.
-
Completely irrelevant, Bill. We had to endure 10 years of that decision. You guys can't have it both ways on this.
I didn't vote for Perot.
-
Completely irrelevant, Bill. We had to endure 10 years of that decision. You guys can't have it both ways on this.
I know it may not apply to George since he votes for a guy who couldn't get nominated in 6 tries, but some of are smart enough to only make a mistake once and then learn from it.
So not only are you slow figuring it out for yourself, your to dumb to understand when some one explains their own experience to you.
-
I know it may not apply to George since he votes for a guy who couldn't get nominated in 6 tries, but some of are smart enough to only make a mistake once and then learn from it.
So not only are you slow figuring it out for yourself, your to dumb to understand when some one explains their own experience to you.
Is that the best you really can come up with? You can't even admit you really don't have a voice here since you are guilty of the same "sin".
And here's the best part, Tom. I really don't have a problem with your vote for Perot. I voted for 41 and I couldn't understand why people were "throwing away their votes" or "voting for Clinton by voting for Perot". Then I grew up, read some books, talked to some people who knew what the phuck they were talking about, thought about what I read and paid attention to what was going on around me. Then I realized that as cantankerous as he was/is he was right about alot of things, specifically NAFTA.
This shouldn't be hard for anyone, especially you, to understand. My beef here is your constant condemnation of me and anyone who would dare to vote for the one who they think is the BEST choice to lead our country. And you have done the same damn thing in the past.
And you really don't think Romney is the best choice for this country either. Do I need to pull all of your quotes where you have called him a "lying POS" or something similar?
So as long as you are going to play the game of a vote candidate x is a vote for candidate y, then I'm going to hang you with your own rope. It's that simple...
-
George, you have typed a lot that shows you just don't like my opinion, but nothing to refute it.
You're like the fox and the grapes and not worth further attention.
-
;)
-
If you hate the country so much you want to see it destroyed, be a man about it and cast your vote for Odamna.
Don't try to salve your conscious by telling yourself a vote for Paul is not a vote to retain the current occupant.
It is.
And if that makes you feel bad, it should. Paul is a fool's choice.
If you don't want to see this nation flushed down the toilet, the only choice now is Romney.
He certainly wasn't my first choice. But he's the only choice, now.
Sheesh...
Crusader