View Full Version : For those who believe the 'Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils' idea & lovers of freedom everywhere
...I urge you to read this short article (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-%E2%80%98lesser-two-evils%E2%80%99-con-game) that is very well written and conveys what I've been saying for years. I still don't understand how anyone can think that voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is somehow helping our nation.
If I choose to take a different action than you or the author of the article, what does that make me?
spqrzilla
06-22-2012, 17:42
Jer, I'd like to give you are respectful response to that article.
I'd like to. But unfortunately, my response has not expanded beyond one syllables yet. When it does, I'll add it here.
tmleadr03
06-22-2012, 17:44
Is it wrong to consider voting for the greater of two evils to get us to hit bottom sooner so we can start to rebuild in our lifetime?
Is it wrong to consider voting for the greater of two evils to get us to hit bottom sooner so we can start to rebuild in our lifetime?
Now THAT is forward thinking! [Beer] [Tooth]
I don’t care what you call it…call it Realism. One of these two guys will be the next president, and it takes a broad based COALITION of people to elect a president. There is absolutely no way to build a coalition strong enough to elect a president where everybody will view political policy the same way…especially in a country the size of the United States. Unfortunately, the decentralized federal government where states once had rights is a thing of the past. If a person or people are not willing to compromise to some extent to form a coalition, then they will be left out in the cold and be left with somebody truly evil like Obama.
The biggest threat this country ever faced was not Hitler, it was not Hirohito, it was not Stalin, it was not Khrushchev, hell it wasn’t even King George the III. The greatest threat to this nation is Obama. He is the commander and chief and he hates this country; he does not believe in this country, he does not believe this country is the best in the word. It takes all this POS can do to even protect this country. He is a liberation apologist and he is eroding the fabric of this nation a little more each day especially with all the class warfare propaganda coming out of the White House. This man is an internal threat to our way of life with power like no other in our history. We should all rally behind whoever it takes to get this POS out of the White House! Like I said before, I would rally behind Hillary Clinton if I could get this fucker out of the White House.
We should all rally behind whoever it takes to get this POS out of the White House!
That's the spirit! I mean, it's worked so well for us for the past several decades so why rock the boat, right?
So... You're voting Obummer?
That's the spirit! I mean, it's worked so well for us for the past several decades so why rock the boat, right?
The problems you are alluding to require a fragmentation of this country to remedy. If you are not willing to cooperate with the socialists and multitude of left of center suburbanites, then only a call to arms will fix that. Personally, I would rather live in a much smaller country with like minded people (hmmm, kinda of like states). Oh well…
This guy’s comment is the best…
Axenolith (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/axenolith)
No, when there's a choice between two evils while you wait for the crap to hit the fan, you pick the one that lets you keep more of your shit and doesn't try to disarm you. Easy choice.
spqrzilla
06-22-2012, 18:06
That's the spirit! I mean, it's worked so well for us for the past several decades so why rock the boat, right?
I blame the "Take my ball home and won't play" people who refused to vote for the lesser of two evils for the fact that the greater of two evils got elected in 2008.
Not to mention 1992.
It makes just as much as sense at the article you started with.
trlcavscout
06-22-2012, 18:07
Yep a vote for anybody but romney is a vote for osama. I cant stand romney but really there is not a chance in hell of getting somebody besides romney/osama voted in. Throw your vote away if you wish but dont cry when shit head gets another term.
blacklabel
06-22-2012, 18:14
I'm with you Jer but you're not going to change any opinions around here.
I understand the thinking behind voting for Romney to oust Obama if you think that Romney is truly going to be an improvement over Obama but I think they're functionally going to be one in the same. Less freedom, more spending, and no improvement.
The problem I have with this article and those that are similar, is they call for action, but don't specifically state what action they are calling for.
Now I like to lie to myself and think that I might be reasonably intelligent, but the way I read the author's "call for action," seems to imply that he believes the only solution to the nation's current problem is a revolution, violent or otherwise. Am I wrong in my reading of the article?
If I'm correct, then step up and make your point clearly.
If I'm not reading this correctly, then I will stop posting in this thread because I'm apparently a bit too dense for this type political discussion.
Be safe.
Bitter Clinger
06-22-2012, 18:16
I dont like romney. But he is getting my vote. I would vote fod the pedophilliac corpse of mkchael Jackson before obama. If you dont vote for romney YOU ARE PARTY TO DESTROYING THIS NATION. so gl ahed and vote for your third party and help this o.ce great nation fall douchebags......
Yep a vote for anybody but romney is a vote for osama. I cant stand romney but really there is not a chance in hell of getting somebody besides romney/osama voted in. Throw your vote away if you wish but dont cry when shit head gets another term.
I experienced the Socialistic Carter and the Opertunistic Womanizer Clinton, and the one thing completely different about these guys and the POS in the White House today; they actually loved their country. I don't think people have a clue how bad it will get when Ococksucker has four more years with no threat of re-election.
The problem I have with this article and those that are similar, is they call for action, but don't specifically state what action they are calling for.
Now I like to lie to myself and think that I might be reasonably intelligent, but the way I read the author's "call for action," seems to imply that he believes the only solution to the nation's current problem is a revolution, violent or otherwise. Am I wrong in my reading of the article?
If I'm correct, then step up and make your point clearly.
If I'm not reading this correctly, then I will stop posting in this thread because I'm apparently a bit too dense for this type political discussion.
Be safe.
I think this is exactly the point...a coalition of people to elect a president will not reflect the political philosophy of the people on this board. ...it just won't. This country is slowly marching left, and that train won't stop without some dynamite on the rails.
Sharpienads
06-22-2012, 18:25
Anybody who thinks this country will be saved by electing the right president is worse than than the guy who thinks voting for the lesser of two evils is the way to go.
What I mean by this is that if you think change (the right kind of change, not "hope and change") is going to start from the top down, you are sorely mistaken. As I've said before, probably about as many times as Jer has tried to convince us to vote for Ron Paul (no offence Jer, just using it as an example), is that if you want to be free the way the Creator intended, then it starts with you and your family, then your neighborhood, then your community, then your city, then your state. When we and others around us accept that liberty is worth the cost and can convince our neighbors, cities and counties of the same, when our states have the balls and the backing to tell the federal government to go you-know-what themselves, then we will be free. Not when we elect the right president.
When we force our states to force the federal government to be as insignificant and inconsequential as it is supposed to be according to the Constitution, that will be a good start. Liberty starts from the ground up, not the top down.
Anybody who thinks this country will be saved by electing the right president is worse than than the guy who thinks voting for the lesser of two evils is the way to go.
What I mean by this is that if you think change (the right kind of change, not "hope and change") is going to start from the top down, you are sorely mistaken. As I've said before, probably about as many times as Jer has tried to convince us to vote for Ron Paul (no offence Jer, just using it as an example), is that if you want to be free the way the Creator intended, then it starts with you and your family, then your neighborhood, then your community, then your city, then your state. When we and others around us accept that liberty is worth the cost and can convince our neighbors, cities and counties of the same, when our states have the balls and the backing to tell the federal government to go you-know-what themselves, then we will be free. Not when we elect the right president.
When we force our states to force the federal government to be as insignificant and inconsequential as it is supposed to be according to the Constitution, that will be a good start. Liberty starts from the ground up, not the top down.
I absolutely agree....
And, that is why I like this guy's response:
Axenolith (http://www.zerohedge.com/users/axenolith)
No, when there's a choice between two evils while you wait for the crap to hit the fan, you pick the one that lets you keep more of your shit and doesn't try to disarm you. Easy choice.
....because we are NOT moving in the direction you described...
Anybody who thinks this country will be saved by electing the right president is worse than than the guy who thinks voting for the lesser of two evils is the way to go.
What I mean by this is that if you think change (the right kind of change, not "hope and change") is going to start from the top down, you are sorely mistaken. As I've said before, probably about as many times as Jer has tried to convince us to vote for Ron Paul (no offence Jer, just using it as an example), is that if you want to be free the way the Creator intended, then it starts with you and your family, then your neighborhood, then your community, then your city, then your state. When we and others around us accept that liberty is worth the cost and can convince our neighbors, cities and counties of the same, when our states have the balls and the backing to tell the federal government to go you-know-what themselves, then we will be free. Not when we elect the right president.
When we force our states to force the federal government to be as insignificant and inconsequential as it is supposed to be according to the Constitution, that will be a good start. Liberty starts from the ground up, not the top down.
Agreed!
Independence starts with I. If the majority of the electorate want to take the nation over the edge of a cliff, I will not be ruled by anyone at the point of a gun, not even the person who wants to stop the train.
Be safe.
sabot_round
06-22-2012, 18:43
Anybody who thinks this country will be saved by electing the right president is worse than than the guy who thinks voting for the lesser of two evils is the way to go.
What I mean by this is that if you think change (the right kind of change, not "hope and change") is going to start from the top down, you are sorely mistaken. As I've said before, probably about as many times as Jer has tried to convince us to vote for Ron Paul (no offence Jer, just using it as an example), is that if you want to be free the way the Creator intended, then it starts with you and your family, then your neighborhood, then your community, then your city, then your state. When we and others around us accept that liberty is worth the cost and can convince our neighbors, cities and counties of the same, when our states have the balls and the backing to tell the federal government to go you-know-what themselves, then we will be free. Not when we elect the right president.
When we force our states to force the federal government to be as insignificant and inconsequential as it is supposed to be according to the Constitution, that will be a good start. Liberty starts from the ground up, not the top down.
Plus 3 here!! If you are not willing to defend your freedom...step out of the way!!
mike9905
06-22-2012, 18:49
Our next President will likely appoint three Supreme Court justices. Does anyone want them appointed by Obama?
stevelkinevil
06-22-2012, 18:52
...I urge you to read this short article (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-%E2%80%98lesser-two-evils%E2%80%99-con-game) that is very well written and conveys what I've been saying for years. I still don't understand how anyone can think that voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is somehow helping our nation.
Very nice brother! Unfortunately our cries mostly fall on deaf ears, hard to punch through designed tradition.
Our next President will likely appoint three Supreme Court justices. Does anyone want them appointed by Obama?
The thought of any more appointments by the big O, necessitates the need to run outside and vomit!
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 18:54
I'm so tired of the "lesser of two evils" false dilemma. Once you start with that you've lost me because it just doesn't hold water.
I've grown tired of arguing the fallacy of a 3rd party solving our problems that I just refuse to play any longer.
Vote how you like. I'm voting for Romney. You may think it's foolish or stupid or whatever. I guarantee you I think your decision to vote 3rd party is just as foolish or stupid. Actually, probably more so.
I've just come to the conclusion that we're going to disagree.
Very nice brother! Unfortunately our cries mostly fall on deaf ears, hard to punch through designed tradition.
I consider myself a traditionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition
Thank you. [Coffee]
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 18:59
Our next President will likely appoint three Supreme Court justices. Does anyone want them appointed by Obama?
That point alone is enough to convince me to vote for Romney.
Sharpienads
06-22-2012, 19:00
Very nice brother! Unfortunately our cries mostly fall on deaf ears, hard to punch through designed tradition.
I can't speak for everybody, but just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it falls on deaf ears.
I've just come to the conclusion that we're going to disagree.
Who wants to live in a world where everyone agrees? Not I. [ROFL2]
Vive la différence!
I'm so tired of the "lesser of two evils" false dilemma. Once you start with that you've lost me because it just doesn't hold water.
I've grown tired of arguing the fallacy of a 3rd party solving our problems that I just refuse to play any longer.
Vote how you like. I'm voting for Romney. You may think it's foolish or stupid or whatever. I guarantee you I think your decision to vote 3rd party is just as foolish or stupid. Actually, probably more so.
I've just come to the conclusion that we're going to disagree.
I don't think people understand the population. Based on the demographics of this country, there is no way to get a president elected without majority support from the moderates of both parties and a majority of the independents. If the third party doesn't appeal to these people, then the candidate will not be elected. I am never going to agree with these people either, but I would rather join forces with them than see a socialist win. The only solution of complete disappointment is a decentralized
government where regional policy is dominant, but that is a clock that can't be turned back.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 19:02
Not to mention that because you believe in something with all your heart doesn't necessarily make your viewpoint right.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 19:04
I don't think people understand the population. Based on the demographics of this country, there is no way to get a president elected without majority support from the moderates of both parties and a majority of the independents. If the third party doesn't appeal to these people, then the candidate will not be elected. I am never going to agree with these people either, but I would rather join forces with them than see a socialist win. The only solution to nobody being happy is decentralized
government, but that is a clock that can't be turned back.
You're correct on this very important point. Hey...I'd like to see a strict constitutionalist type candidate who's going to solve all our political problems get elected as much as the next guy. The only problem with that is....
I live in the painful world of reality.
sellersm
06-22-2012, 19:06
All this assumes the voting process actually works... I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but I just wonder how 'rigged' or 'hacked' it is?
Sharpienads
06-22-2012, 19:11
All this assumes the voting process actually works... I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but I just wonder how 'rigged' or 'hacked' it is?
I guess when Dear Leader gets re-elected with 99.9% of the vote and shoots a 38 under par on his next golf outing we'll know how rigged it is.
But seriously, I have my doubts about its integrity as well, regardless of who wins. I wouldn't put it past any of the rats running for federal office.
a third party vote is a waste. a third party DOES NOT have a chance in hell of winning. It's that kind of thinking that will make this race closer than it needs to be. Voting for 3rd party is equivalent to having 3 horses in the Kentucky derby and you put your life savings on the 3 legged one.
The biggest point of Romeny winning is the potential for 3 SCOTUS justices to be replaced. do you really want 3 more like Kagan and Sotomayer? fuck that noise.
All this assumes the voting process actually works... I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but I just wonder how 'rigged' or 'hacked' it is?
The margin of error on elections over the past few decades is pretty low. However, I see the O *hit I’m Screwed is trying to put the organized crime bosses back into big government, which really sucks.
I spent my early years in politics in DC and Washington State as a policy analyst. I met a lot of good people and some rats, but I did not leave because of the people or the rats; I left this career because I saw no hope in it. There are two universal truths quoted by many authors. If a man seeks power, he will abuse it. If the masses find a way to raid the treasury, they will empty it. This country is broken; the barriers and rules to prevent these two simple rules were destroyed and I see no hope of rebuilding them. There are simply not enough people who will surrender their cut of the treasury to rebuild the foundation of this country. We can only hope to delay the inevitable or take it back by force; unfortunately, this is the reality. I think what cstone said was right-on…I just don’t think it will happen.
I don’t care what you call it…call it Realism. One of these two guys will be the next president, and it takes a broad based COALITION of people to elect a president. There is absolutely no way to build a coalition strong enough to elect a president where everybody will view political policy the same way…especially in a country the size of the United States. Unfortunately, the decentralized federal government where states once had rights is a thing of the past. If a person or people are not willing to compromise to some extent to form a coalition, then they will be left out in the cold and be left with somebody truly evil like Obama.
The biggest threat this country ever faced was not Hitler, it was not Hirohito, it was not Stalin, it was not Khrushchev, hell it wasn’t even King George the III. The greatest threat to this nation is Obama. He is the commander and chief and he hates this country; he does not believe in this country, he does not believe this country is the best in the word. It takes all this POS can do to even protect this country. He is a liberation apologist and he is eroding the fabric of this nation a little more each day especially with all the class warfare propaganda coming out of the White House. This man is an internal threat to our way of life with power like no other in our history. We should all rally behind whoever it takes to get this POS out of the White House! Like I said before, I would rally behind Hillary Clinton if I could get this fucker out of the White House.
This is precisely how the GOP works.
The GOP is an inclusive party, they accept all kind of folks. Your basic 3rd party is EXCLUSIVE, they only want folks that hold to their strict ideology.
I would love to vote for something other than the GOP but third parties have done a HORRIBLE and MISERABLE job of promoting themselves to the average voter. Third parties just don't appeal to the broad base of voters required to win high office, it is that pesky exclusive thing again.
This election is the most important one to date in the lives of many of us here. We MUST get Obama out of office in November 2012, I do not want to think about the consequences if we don't.
I think enough of the future to try to give us a chance. If Obama wins there won't be much of a future for this country, Romney gives us a chance.
I will be voting for Romney.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 19:45
I have a serious question for Jer or any of the other guys who think Romney=Obama or Democrat=Republican:
Who is running in this election that's a perfect candidate that you will vote for?
Seriously. Obviously the guy you're going to vote for, assuming you'll vote for someone, must be perfect. Because we certainly can't compromise. That would be voting for a lesser evil.
So who is the perfect candidate that's going to get your vote?
Fentonite
06-22-2012, 19:58
In a perfect, ideal (aka "make-believe") world, sure, vote with your heart. But I'm afraid we live in the realm of reality. Voting based on emotion just to make a point, especially when the logical/mathematical consequence is contrary to one's own desires, is retarded. It's reminiscent of a ranting liberal 20 year-old college brat who has no real life-experience, but who still thinks they know how to run (save) the world.
Third parties are making progress. I expect that someday they will be able to legitimately compete for office; but we're not there yet. Until we are, I will make my vote based on rational logic, not emotion. If there must be an emotional component, here it is: I know that I will not have to wrestle with my conscience about my vote having contributed to the further socialization of my country.
Third parties are making progress. I expect that someday they will be able to legitimately compete for office; but we're not there yet. Until we are, I will make my vote based on rational logic, not emotion. If there must be an emotional component, here it is: I know that I will not have to wrestle with my conscience about my vote having contributed to the further socialization of my country.
We do have multiple parties, they are just cloaked under the “established” coalitions of Democrats and Republicans.
We can break it down in terms of truth in advertising such as:
Communists, socialists, green, labor, and so on…
Independent “Moderates with no particular view just keep it working”
Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, constitutional, libertarian, and so on…
At the end of the day…these groups will still need to come together to form a coalition regardless of what you call it. If any one particular group forces its will on the coalition, it breaks down.
gcrookston
06-22-2012, 20:19
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj19/gcrookston/obama-lite-rom-can.jpg
--as a registered Libertarian, that's about all I have to say about that...
DD977GM2
06-22-2012, 20:27
...I urge you to read this short article (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-%E2%80%98lesser-two-evils%E2%80%99-con-game) that is very well written and conveys what I've been saying for years.
I still don't understand how anyone can think that voting for the 'lesser of two evils' is somehow helping our nation.
I cant understand how someone voting their heart and voting 3rd party has
no clue as to the actual vote they just cast is wasted since that 3rd party or whoever isnt a R or D and the one who won
thier party's nomination STANDS NO CHANCE IN HELL in getting elected. This country is unfortunatly a 2 party country regardless
of how we actually wanna believe we are not. You vote for anyone other then the republican
who stands a chance to win and at least wont fuck this ocuntry up any further then nobummer
is a truely wasted vote. Libetarian etc isnt going to win an election in our lifetime. SOrry to burst your utopian bubble, but it isnt going to happen
and a vote 3rd party is truely a wasted vote and will be giving the dumnocrats a vote and taking one away from our chance for a conservative to gain office.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj19/gcrookston/obama-lite-rom-can.jpg
--as a registered Libertarian, that's about all I have to say about that...
I completely disagree...
Romney is a centrist who actually believes in the country.
Obama is a socialist with a strong liberation undertone.
Centrist (who loves the country) vs. Socialist (who hates the country)
...yep, they are exactly the same [Bang][Bang][Bang]
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 20:39
Yeah...and the "Romney=Obama Lite" line is not only getting tiresome...it's a sure sign the person spouting the platitude is ridiculously ill-informed on the issues, history of the candidates and current events.
theGinsue
06-22-2012, 20:40
Ross Perot was the only 3rd party candidate in my lifetime to have ever had a chance of getting elected into the Office of the POTUS but he screwed it up with his "I'm in. I'm out. I'm back in" cr@p. The effects of this are still being felt today.
As others have stated, 3rd parties just don't have the broad based appeal to win the election. Because of this, they only serve to pull votes from the "lesser of two evils" candidate - usually the GOP candidate. The Dems count on this more than they do their voter fraud efforts.
The Dems select their candidate by choosing someone they believe has the voter appeal to win the election. The GOP selects their candidate by selecting those they feel have paid their party dues - even if there are many better choices which represent the values of conservatism.
I'm voting for Romney. Not because I like anything he stands for, but because I know that anything less WILL help to re-elect Oblowme. Anything less and I might as well turn my guns into the "State", give away all of the possessions I've worked hard to acquire, turn over all of my income to the "State", and put my hands out in front of myself to receive the shackles of my bondage.
Bottom line: Do I think Romney will make everything better? No, but two things I know with all my heart - (1) there is no 3rd party candidate with enough appeal to win the election, and (2) if Obummer keeps the Office we will come to believe that his first 4 years in Office weren't so bad after all.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 20:40
How's that "registered Libertarian" thing working out for you in national and state elections?
I completely disagree...
Romney is a centrist who actually believes in the country.
Obama is a socialist with a strong liberation undertone.
Centrist (who loves the country) vs. Socialist (who hates the country)
...yep, they are exactly the same [Bang][Bang][Bang]
Yeah...and the "Romney=Obama Lite" line is not only getting tiresome...it's a sure sign the person spouting the platitude is ridiculously ill-informed on the issues, history of the candidates and current events.
Nailed it.
It is a 2 party country, 1 party will win.
1 has a prety girl, 1 has an attractive girl, a 3rd party is like a trailer trash meth head beatch.
Go with her if you want but then what you end up with might not be to your liking.
The problem is people who don't vote often bitch the most and either way they are "right". They will bitch about Romney and say I told you so, or they will bitch about Obama and say I told you so. It's quite annoying.
Romney IS Obama lite in many ways. That's a fact. But he is very lite when you consider he at least likes te country. Nevertheless he is clearly far more liberal than we what need. Still it's a clear choice
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 20:59
Romney IS Obama lite in many ways. That's a fact. But he is very lite when you consider he at least likes te country. Nevertheless he is clearly far more liberal than we what need. Still it's a clear choice
Don't state it as fact unless you can provide some proof.
gcrookston
06-22-2012, 21:07
Yeah...and the "Romney=Obama Lite" line is not only getting tiresome...it's a sure sign the person spouting the platitude is ridiculously ill-informed on the issues, history of the candidates and current events.
I'm well aware of the history of accomplishments of the candidate as a venture capitalist and Governor and recognize what he and people like him have done to the detriment of the US economy resulting in the last 5 years' recession.
I'm hard pressed to find any differences in the current positions between the candidates other than their party affiliations. They disgust me.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:12
I'm hard pressed to find any differences in the current positions between the candidates other than their party affiliations. They disgust me.
Wow... Really? Do you read anything? Ever watch the news?
If there's no difference in their positions why aren't hard-core leftists or even slightly left-of-center democrats saying, "Huh...I just can't decide. The positions that Romney and Obama take on all the issues are so strikingly similar that I just can't tell the difference between their positions. I'll just flip a coin on who to vote for."
And what's wrong with venture capitalists?
Don't state it as fact unless you can provide some proof.
I presented proof & half the people here don't even bother reading the link posted before submitting their dos centavos (might as well get used to speaking Spanish now) on the topic. Within that link is a video comparing SCOTUS to Mittens. They're not all that different.
I don't know why I tried. I love how someone was so hell bent on Republican being the only way that he mentioned years the Democratic presidents were elected as if we had had Republicans instead for the last two decades everything would be just fine. Yeah, ok. Because Gee Dub didn't do any damage at all.
I don't know why I bother when most people aren't even going to read they're so programmed to lash out against anyone who dares challenge the system.
Don't state it as fact unless you can provide some proof.
is that a joke? how about his entire record? is that enough proof? i mean this isn't rocket science. liberal is as liberal does.
I presented proof & half the people here don't even bother reading the link posted before submitting their dos centavos (might as well get used to speaking Spanish now) on the topic. Within that link is a video comparing SCOTUS to Mittens. They're not all that different.
I don't know why I tried. I love how someone was so hell bent on Republican being the only way that he mentioned years the Democratic presidents were elected as if we had had Republicans instead for the last two decades everything would be just fine. Yeah, ok. Because Gee Dub didn't do any damage at all.
I don't know why I bother when most people aren't even going to read they're so programmed to lash out against anyone who dares challenge the system.
if it was realistic for someone else to beat the system i think most of us would be all for it. the point is that our future is mostly decided for us. if you think the people vote in a president you are incredibly naive. we get two candidates basically chosen for us, usually bad ones. people grow up thinking we the people have power and can change things but in reality, with the current system, thats false. its a rigged game.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:21
You didn't provide proof or anything close to proof. You provided a link to an opinion piece on a blog. A link to an opinion that validated your own opinions.
Obviously you're welcome to your own opinions. But trying to pass off that link as proof of anything other than there's someone else out there that shares you viewpoint is not gonna fly.
Furthermore, who's lashed out at anyone in this thread?
I'm with you Jer but you're not going to change any opinions around here.
I understand the thinking behind voting for Romney to oust Obama if you think that Romney is truly going to be an improvement over Obama but I think they're functionally going to be one in the same. Less freedom, more spending, and no improvement.
Very nice brother! Unfortunately our cries mostly fall on deaf ears, hard to punch through designed tradition.
One day I'll learn to just bite my tongue & accept the fate chose for me by the majority. It amazes me how many people subscribe to the theory: If it ain't working just keep doing it the same way & it's bound to get better eventually. Heaven forbid someone attempt to buck business as usual with something as simple and safe as a vote. I'm supposed to believe these same people who are afraid of the outcome of a presidential election will take up arms for what is right the way they claim on internet forums? Yeah. Right.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:22
is that a joke? how about his entire record? is that enough proof? i mean this isn't rocket science. liberal is as liberal does.
Well that's pretty definitive... [ROFL1]
You didn't provide proof or anything close to proof. You provided a link to an opinion piece on a blog. A link to an opinion that validated your own opinions.
Obviously you're welcome to your own opinions. But trying to pass off that link as proof of anything other than there's someone else out there that shares you viewpoint is not gonna fly.
Furthermore, who's lashed out at anyone in this thread?
Again, the proof wasn't the link. But had you clicked the link & actually read the article you would have seen a video comparing the two. Thanks for taking the time to read before jumping into the conversation though.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:25
In another thread I posted numerous, substantial differences in policy positions between Romney and Obama. Verifiable differences.
Why can't you do the same to prove there is little or no difference between the two. "His entire record" ain't gonna fly, either.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:30
I read the article...twice. It was as wrong (in my opinion) the second time as it was the first. And it was opinion only both times I read it. So what?
I ask legitimate questions and all I get are crickets chirping or simplistic "his entire record" statements.
And a few of you wonder why you can't change opinions to your side. Like tmckay2 said, "It ain't rocket science."
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 21:36
One day I'll learn to just bite my tongue & accept the fate chose for me by the majority. It amazes me how many people subscribe to the theory: If it ain't working just keep doing it the same way & it's bound to get better eventually. Heaven forbid someone attempt to buck business as usual with something as simple and safe as a vote. I'm supposed to believe these same people who are afraid of the outcome of a presidential election will take up arms for what is right the way they claim on internet forums? Yeah. Right.
The more I think about it the more I realize how hypocritical this statement is. You're pissing and moaning about people giving you a hard time about wanting change through a vote. Yet you and a few others are constantly doing the same thing in political discussions here by chastising some of us for what we believe in and voting the way we do.
I spent 14 years of my life under arms in service to my country. I'm entitled to an opinion, and that's all it is, just like you.
Anybody who thinks this country will be saved by electing the right president is worse than than the guy who thinks voting for the lesser of two evils is the way to go.
What I mean by this is that if you think change (the right kind of change, not "hope and change") is going to start from the top down, you are sorely mistaken. As I've said before, probably about as many times as Jer has tried to convince us to vote for Ron Paul (no offence Jer, just using it as an example), is that if you want to be free the way the Creator intended, then it starts with you and your family, then your neighborhood, then your community, then your city, then your state. When we and others around us accept that liberty is worth the cost and can convince our neighbors, cities and counties of the same, when our states have the balls and the backing to tell the federal government to go you-know-what themselves, then we will be free. Not when we elect the right president.
When we force our states to force the federal government to be as insignificant and inconsequential as it is supposed to be according to the Constitution, that will be a good start. Liberty starts from the ground up, not the top down.
[Bow]
Very well put.
I read the article...twice. It was as wrong (in my opinion) the second time as it was the first. And it was opinion only both times I read it. So what?
I ask legitimate questions and all I get are crickets chirping or simplistic "his entire record" statements.
And a few of you wonder why you can't change opinions to your side. Like tmckay2 said, "It ain't rocket science."
It's really not worth my time to look up articles, charts and graphs to prove his record. It's common knowledge and out there for everyone to see. If you refuse to pay attention to it that's your problem not mine. It's similar to arguing with an Obama supporter. If they fail to relieve he's a socialist then clearly I would be wasting my time tryin to "prove" it. That's why you don't win many to your side because everyone is so brain washed into their beliefs they don't even look at the facts or learn from history.
As I said, Romney is a much better choice than Obama. At the very least we will keep our second amendment rights which soon could be more valuable than ever. But he still has many of the same problems Obama has. Any why should we be surprised? The political parties rarely put forth a legitimate, common sense, incorruptible, hard working person who wasn't given most of what they hae in life. In most cases to be president you had to hae rich parents, attend ivy league schools (which should be grounds for exemption in my opinion), and usually they have no idea of what a real day of work is. Yet people still worship te ground they walk on, it's amazing.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 22:04
One reason Romney is different than Obama...on the issue most cite as the reason they're the same:
"My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy,' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others."
The following is from: http://mittromneyandhealthcare.blogspot.com/p/romneycare-vs-obamacare.html
But it can easily be verified elsewhere.
RomneyCare vs ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope
-Romney's whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Obama's whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no "opt out" provision
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs
-Romneycare - No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Obamacare - Increases taxes by $500 billion
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
Popularity
-Romneycare had very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Obamacare - Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Constitutionality
-Romneycare is constitutional
-Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will remain constitutional
-Obamacare is potentially unconstitutional
-Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal gov. power in regard to this law
Federalism
Romneycare:
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
Obamacare:
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.
[Bow]
Very well put.
This is the main problem with people these days and even in the past. They don't understand that once power is centralized its impossible to get back. Emergencies and crisis have caused us over the years to give up personal and states rights in exchange for "security" from the central government and now it's too late. Though I agree the states taking their power back is the biggest step that needs to be taken.
Fentonite
06-22-2012, 22:13
Bailey, thank you for your post comparing and contrasting RomneyCare versus ObamaCare. THAT is a demonstration of how to post facts to support a position, instead of just claiming the existence "common knowledge".
Sharpienads
06-22-2012, 22:31
This is the main problem with people these days and even in the past. They don't understand that once power is centralized its impossible to get back.
I disagree with this. There are several ways to decentralize power: Constitutional restoration, secession, or, God forbid, revolution. Of course these all require Americans to actually cherish freedom, which many do not. Voting for Ron Paul isn't going to change that.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2012, 22:44
More:
Romney: Reduce individual tax rates by 20% and cut or eliminate other individual taxes. Reduce corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%
Obama: Said taxes for anyone making under $250k won't increase. Thinks further taxing wealthy people will raise income.
Romney: Repeal/replace Obamacare. Issue waivers to all states to opt out of Obamacare.
Obama: Thinks Obamacare is the answer to our health care system.
Romney: Further exploit our energy sources.
Obama: Thinks oil and coal are bad. Loaned Solyndra .5 Billion Dollars...now bankrupt. Has no real energy plan other than to say we need to develop other energy sources.
Romney: Wants to seriously cut spending...non-discretionary spending to below 2008 levels. Cap spending at 20% of GDP. Reduce the size of gov't.
Obama: Obviously, he doesn't understand that we can't spend our way out of debt.
Romney: Feels Israel is our closest and strongest ally in the region. Strong supporter.
Obama: Doesn't.
Romney: Is for a strong military and wants to reverse several Obama cuts in defense spending.
Obama: Cut defense spending...but implement DADT.
Romney: Will nominate Supreme Court justices "in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."
Obama: Sotomayor and Kagan...nuff said.
Romney: Opposes amnesty for illegals. Wants to secure borders. Will build fences and hire more border patrol. Enforce US law.
Obama: Just told the ICE to stop deportations of certain illegals. For amnesty. Weak on border security.
Romney: Bain Capital. Private money invested in private enterprise. It's what capitalism is all about.
Obama: Taxpayer money to bail out private business with strong union membership.
Romney: No "Fast and Furious".
Obama: "Fast and Furious".
Romney: Gun rights. Not a stellar record but he's not the worst we've seen, either.
Obama: "Fast and Furious"...an obvious attempt to manipulate violence in Mexico with American supplied guns in an attempt to restrict 2A rights of Americans. Dead Border Patrol agent.
Just a small list of significant policy differences. Now someone PLEASE tell me again how these two men are the same. PLEASE.
I read the article and I stated what I thought the author was trying to say, albeit he was trying to say it between the lines without just coming right out and making his point.
I personally do not feel that we as a nation are on the verge of a civil war or need to overthrow our current constitutional government. It has problems and it always has had problems. We have faced greater difficulties in our nation's history and we have overcome them. Not everyone is happy with the outcome of those solutions, but we continue as a nation trying to work through our differences.
It seemed to me that the author was calling for a revolution, without coming out and saying that we need to overthrow the government.
Am I really that far off in missing the point of the author? I just wished he had come right out and said what meant without the subterfuge.
I read the article and I stated what I thought the author was trying to say, albeit he was trying to say it between the lines without just coming right out and making his point.
I personally do not feel that we as a nation are on the verge of a civil war or need to overthrow our current constitutional government. It has problems and it always has had problems. We have faced greater difficulties in our nation's history and we have overcome them. Not everyone is happy with the outcome of those solutions, but we continue as a nation trying to work through our differences.
It seemed to me that the author was calling for a revolution, without coming out and saying that we need to overthrow the government.
Am I really that far off in missing the point of the author? I just wished he had come right out and said what meant without the subterfuge.
I personally feel as though we are right back where we were in the 1840s. There are two very divergent ways of thinking in this country, and we are watching a ping pong match between the two. I don’t see how socialists and the proponents of limited government can coexist in this winner take all atmospheres; it simply can’t work. Unfortunately, this country is moving steadily toward socialism; it really depends on when people reach their breaking point. Given the demographics of the country, the influx of illegal aliens, and the centralization of power, it just doesn’t look promising. In the next ten years, I predict major erosion in our liberties. It will be interesting to see who takes a stand and to what extent.
At least Romney is actually from THIS country!
At least Romney is actually from THIS country!
But Romney will get his own planet. [ROFL3]
gcrookston
06-23-2012, 08:08
But Romney will get his own planet. [ROFL3]
...I'd rather have the 70 vigins
...I'd rather have the 70 vigins
Goats or boys.[Muaha]
Sharpienads
06-23-2012, 08:39
Goats or boys.[Muaha]
Boy goats?
yankeefan98121
06-23-2012, 08:43
Boy goats?
Fucking awesome!! [Beer]
palepainter
06-23-2012, 09:20
That was a hell of a wrap up to a very long and debated conversation. BOY GOATS....HAHAAHAHHA.
In all seriousness, I am not a Romney fan, but when it comes to pulling the lever, he will prob get my vote. It will be interesting to see what goes down at the GOP Convention. One thing that sticks in my mind.... Romney wasn't good enough in 2008 to get the nod, what makes him any better today. Is it simply because McCain isn't running? I dunno.... I speculate there, amidst the conscious consideration of Boy Goats. :)
Both options are just terrible. I won't be voting for either.
I've only voted for an incumbent president once. It was a mistake I won't repeat. No matter how bad ANY president from either party is, their worst deeds are in term 2.
Like others have said, I think that this is a very pessimistic view of an already difficult problem to solve. The problem that we have is not the people that we are electing, it is the power that we are giving them. If we want to have a honest, honorable politician that will act with integrity, we can not allow them to have the power to regulate their own power and compensation. That is what is breeding this group of elitist politicians.
Plus I need another couple years to prepare for the downfall of the country so I would appreciate it if everyone would vote for the lesser of two evils. Thanks
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 11:12
The last honest, ethical and down to earth person to run on a presidential ticket was destroyed by liberals and conservatives alike.
Sarah Palin was probably everything a lot of people say they want in a potential presidential candidate. But even so-called conservatives on this forum bought into the liberal propaganda about how stupid she is, etc.
So I take a lot of this "I want real change" BS spouted here with a huge grain of salt.
Sharpienads
06-23-2012, 11:22
The last honest, ethical and down to earth person to run on a presidential ticket was destroyed by liberals and conservatives alike.
Sarah Palin was probably everything a lot of people say they want in a potential presidential candidate. But even so-called conservatives on this forum bought into the liberal propaganda about how stupid she is, etc.
So I take a lot of this "I want real change" BS spouted here with a huge grain of salt.
Whoa, hey now. You can not support a 3rd party, that's fine. But supporting Sarah Palin? Now that's just crazy talk!
Unfortunatey, its all bullshit anyway. He with the biggest war chest will win, regardless of his political ideals, has always been that way and will continue to be so. None of these bastards on the hill give shit about anything other then benefiting themselves and their constituents. The only thing that will save this country and put it back to what it once was is a revolution. However, until my kids are old enough to defend themselves, I will pull the Mitt, lesser of the two evil's lever, and buy some time to get ready for the inevitable.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 11:42
OK...I'm crazy. Give me some meds. The Bourbon kind.
Both options are just terrible. I won't be voting for either.
so you are writing in pink pony?[ROFL1]
I've only voted for an incumbent president once. It was a mistake I won't repeat. No matter how bad ANY president from either party is, their worst deeds are in term 2.
which is why I would much rather see single term presidents mandatory. 5 or 6 years, 1 term max. that way they get in, get their shit done and gtfo.
and on top of that, they should be limited in their campaigning for the next guys. don't waste our time yapping about how great the next guy is going to be. that time and money should be spent in the white house, not on air force one or million dollar RVs or fucking parade floats....
Whoa, hey now. You can not support a 3rd party, that's fine. But supporting Sarah Palin? Now that's just crazy talk!
I don't see how anyone could not like her. she is into guns, hunting, nice views, easy on the eyes, loves her country and wants more than anything for it to turn around. anyone who has the idea that she was "stupid" is listening to the media propaganda machine. just because she didn't fit into the political pocket like mccain and others wanted her too, they ousted her.
so you are writing in pink pony?[ROFL1]
For the New Lunar Republic!
http://images.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw2643-new_luna_republic.jpg
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 12:07
That logo behind the blue horse almost looks like the Punisher skull.
Sharpienads
06-23-2012, 12:22
I don't see how anyone could not like her. she is into guns, hunting, nice views, easy on the eyes, loves her country and wants more than anything for it to turn around. anyone who has the idea that she was "stupid" is listening to the media propaganda machine. just because she didn't fit into the political pocket like mccain and others wanted her too, they ousted her.
Agreed.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 12:24
Palin would've been a good VP and a better P.
Palin would've been a good VP and a better P.
Eh I don't know. She seemed ignorant about some things during the 08 campaign.
Certainly a good VP candidate, though.
The last honest, ethical and down to earth person to run on a presidential ticket was destroyed by liberals and conservatives alike.
Sarah Palin was probably everything a lot of people say they want in a potential presidential candidate. But even so-called conservatives on this forum bought into the liberal propaganda about how stupid she is, etc.
So I take a lot of this "I want real change" BS spouted here with a huge grain of salt.
I was with you throughout the entire thread until you went here. That woman is all about self promotion. She will string her supporters along at election time just to line her pockets. Granted, just like most other poiticians. But let's not make Palin the GOP annointed one.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 12:33
Now someone PLEASE tell me again how these two men are the same. PLEASE.
Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 12:38
I was with you throughout the entire thread until you went here. That woman is all about self promotion. She will string her supporters along at election time just to line her pockets. Granted, just like most other poiticians. But let's not make Palin the GOP annointed one.
Nobody said anything about anointing her. Besides...she's not even in the race. The point in bringing up Palin was she was a total outsider, strong believer in personal freedoms, strong believer in states rights, hard-core conservative and in touch with the common person. Everything a lot of people, including a lot on this forum, say they want in a president.
But, like you, they vilify her at every opportunity and I just don't get it. Why would you say all she's interested in is lining her pockets at the expense of her supporters?
Now someone PLEASE tell me again how these two men are the same. PLEASE.
Same as in similar?
I don't need a birth certificate to believe they are both male.
They are both politicians.
They both have children and I believe both were naturally birthed by human females.
Sorry, I'm about out on their sameness. Any help? [Flower]
Eh I don't know. She seemed ignorant about some things during the 08 campaign.
Certainly a good VP candidate, though.
and obummer was better?
did you watch McCain try to debate? Give the choices up there, they would have been better off to let Sarah give it a shot. At least she would have been nice to look at
Sharpienads
06-23-2012, 13:08
Eh I don't know. She seemed ignorant about some things during the 08 campaign.
Certainly a good VP candidate, though.
Was she ignorant about things a president should know, or do we expect our presidents to do too much, just like we expect our congress to do too much?
Nobody said anything about anointing her. Besides...she's not even in the race. The point in bringing up Palin was she was a total outsider, strong believer in personal freedoms, strong believer in states rights, hard-core conservative and in touch with the common person. Everything a lot of people, including a lot on this forum, say they want in a president.
But, like you, they vilify her at every opportunity and I just don't get it. Why would you say all she's interested in is lining her pockets at the expense of her supporters?
I supported her and she didn't line her pockets with anything of mine. She was all the things a lot of people say they want. I don't get it either. And she was the only reason the '08 race was even close.
Same as in similar?
I don't need a birth certificate to believe they are both male.
They are both politicians.
They both have children and I believe both were naturally birthed by human females.
Sorry, I'm about out on their sameness. Any help? [Flower]
I will jokingly question Obama being a Male. Based on the looks of his wife, compared to supposed Sasquatch sightings and Chewbacca in the Star Wars movies...I can only question who is the male[Tooth]
Sharpienads
06-23-2012, 13:09
Same as in similar?
I don't need a birth certificate to believe they are both male.
They are both politicians.
They both have children and I believe both were naturally birthed by human females.
Sorry, I'm about out on their sameness. Any help? [Flower]
Don't forget they are both at least half white as well.
I was with you throughout the entire thread until you went here. That woman is all about self promotion. She will string her supporters along at election time just to line her pockets. Granted, just like most other poiticians. But let's not make Palin the GOP annointed one.
She has to make a living too. She, just like any other politician out there has to make money to feed her kids (even though she hunts), pay the bills etc. criticizing someone because they are good at making money is just jealousy. Same thing the OWS retards are doing...same thing the obama supporters say about Romney. They are pissed that Romney has money. who cares...he has done well, whether it was from his father or not, he still does well for himself. He plays the system the way it has been set up. Everyone else has pretty much the same opportunities...if they don't they scream bloody murder and want to tax the shit out of those making the money so they can get some of the "good life" without working for it.
Nobody said anything about anointing her. Besides...she's not even in the race. The point in bringing up Palin was she was a total outsider, strong believer in personal freedoms, strong believer in states rights, hard-core conservative and in touch with the common person. Everything a lot of people, including a lot on this forum, say they want in a president.
But, like you, they vilify her at every opportunity and I just don't get it. Why would you say all she's interested in is lining her pockets at the expense of her supporters?
Not vilifying her at all. She can make all the $$ she wants and it has no impact on my life. Just think back to how long she strung the party faithful along while she was promoting herself with her bus tour. How long was she "undecided" about whether she was gonna throw her hat in the ring? All the while promoting her speaking tour. Just my opinion, but I believe she knew the whole time she couldn't win and would not enter the race. She just took advantage of her rock start status among the tea party.
I'm done. I do like how we managed to redirect this thread, however....[Coffee]
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 15:20
I have no doubt she was taking full advantage of her "rock star" status. But I don't think it was necessarily to benefit her personally. She, along with the Tea Party, has done more to excite conservatives than anyone in my lifetime. Well, except for maybe Barack Obama.
Did you ever consider she might have been using her status to get the base fired up?
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 15:21
Same as in similar?
I don't need a birth certificate to believe they are both male.
They are both politicians.
They both have children and I believe both were naturally birthed by human females.
Sorry, I'm about out on their sameness. Any help? [Flower]
Well...that's the best I've seen so far. Nobody from the Romney=Obama camp seems to be able to come up with anything substantial.
Well...that's the best I've seen so far. Nobody from the Romney=Obama camp seems to be able to come up with anything substantial.
Not that I am trying to say that they are equal, and I will vote for Romney, but two things that really bother me are:
1) Both have drafted a form of socialized medicine that is very similar. (Though Romney vows to repeal ObamaCare, so I am not sure if this counts.)
2) Both came from states with absolutely ridiculous gun laws, and had a hand in their implementation and enforcement though neither actually created said gun laws.
It is unclear to me how much of a hand Romney had when dealing with the two things that I have listed, and I think that the information out there has been obscured on purpose because there is not a single thing either way that directly links him to the legislation that was drafted while he was in office, or what he did to oppose the implementation of the legislation. So it is not fair to say that they are on a level playing field on the issues. But if he was in a position of power and had the ability to stop the Massachusetts health care reform, or at least make it less like ObamaCare why didn't he? If he is really pro 2A why is there gun control act revisions banning more "assault weapons" during times when he was governor?
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/gun-laws/
And to be clear, I actually like Romney a little. He seems to be financially smart and from an economic standpoint has sound ideas. Unlike BO who has absolutely no idea what he is doing in any facet of life much less the presidency.
I am not trying to demonize him, I just would like to see some questions answered about where he stands, and why certain things in his past were allowed to happen if he had the ability to stop them.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 16:05
Danimal...
Already covered the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare...look back a page or two.
Gun thing? Like I said...he ain't the strongest but he's better than most. Look on his page for specific quotes re: gun rights. I don't think he's gonna be really hip to any new anti-gun legislation...nor will the house assuming it stays republican.
And to be clear, I actually like Romney a little. He seems to be financially smart and from an economic standpoint has sound ideas. Unlike BO who has absolutely no idea what he is doing in any facet of life much less the presidency.
I am not trying to demonize him, I just would like to see some questions answered about where he stands, and why certain things in his past were allowed to happen if he had the ability to stop them.
Well you see you and I have about the same view on Romney. Sadly it seems some have bought the sly politician talk hook line and sinker. If you look at his commits and record on things over the last four years such as tarp, gm and bank bailouts, the stimulus, healthcare and gun control, it really doesn't take a genius to figure out why some on the right, especially those who value liberty, are a bit uneasy. Then you consider the flip flopping and change in stance on some issues since he started campaigning for president and it looks shockingly similar to all the other politicians we've seen over the last few decades. You can't look at only what he SAYS now, you have to look at what he has done or hasn't done in the past as well. Is he better than Obama? By a long shot. Would he be considered a liberal 20 or 30 years ago? Absolutely. Is he a beginning to turning this country around? No way, but he will at least slow down the bleeding until conservatives can hopefully grow in number and convince the country we don't need a moderate, we need to go back to the conservative thinking of the long distance past, such as the founding fathers.
Well...that's the best I've seen so far. Nobody from the Romney=Obama camp seems to be able to come up with anything substantial.
Well, they both have a penchant for socialized health care. And they are both gun grabbers. And they are both liars. And they'll say anything to get elected, so you can't trust anything at all they say.
If I had to vote based solely on gun rights, I'd have to choose between the guy that signed an assault weapons ban into law, and the guy who signed national parks carry into law.
Otherwise I'd be voting between the guy whom I know where he stands, and the guy that keeps changing his mind and says that when he said/did things, he didn't really want to, but had to.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 16:34
Well, they both have a penchant for socialized health care. And they are both gun grabbers. And they are both liars. And they'll say anything to get elected, so you can't trust anything at all they say.
If I had to vote based solely on gun rights, I'd have to choose between the guy that signed an assault weapons ban into law, and the guy who signed national parks carry into law.
Otherwise I'd be voting between the guy whom I know where he stands, and the guy that keeps changing his mind and says that when he said/did things, he didn't really want to, but had to.
And you think Obama wanted to sign that bill with the concealed carry in national parks legislation? That's funny right there. You need to revisit that legislation and find out exactly why Obama signed it.
What about choosing the guy that oversaw F&F?
Well, they both have a penchant for socialized health care. And they are both gun grabbers. And they are both liars. And they'll say anything to get elected, so you can't trust anything at all they say.
If I had to vote based solely on gun rights, I'd have to choose between the guy that signed an assault weapons ban into law, and the guy who signed national parks carry into law.
Otherwise I'd be voting between the guy whom I know where he stands, and the guy that keeps changing his mind and says that when he said/did things, he didn't really want to, but had to.
I would have to disagree on your position for all of this. The only reason that Obama did not sign "gun grabbing" legislation into law is because the laws were well established before he got there, and he never actually did anything while in a position of political power. Something like 80% non-votes while in the senate if I remember correctly. It is easy to say that he did not do something bad if he did nothing at all.
This is where my first post in this thread was going. When you give politicians too much power, then you get corrupt politicians on all fronts. Power corrupts absolutely, and if we ever want to get this country it has nothing to do with who we elect in the short term. It has everything to do with getting the balance of power back where it belongs (the people) and education reform where we kill the public school system that is pumping out all of these helpless little robots that can not survive without the government assistance.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 16:40
Oh...and don't forget. The Bush administration was responsible for amending the carry in parks rule in 2008. It was a federal court that put the kibosh on it.
If your going to vote for the lesser of the two turds, Vote for the better looking wife.
At least you won't wish your were blind.
Danimal...
Already covered the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare...look back a page or two.
Gun thing? Like I said...he ain't the strongest but he's better than most. Look on his page for specific quotes re: gun rights. I don't think he's gonna be really hip to any new anti-gun legislation...nor will the house assuming it stays republican.
It would be good if Romney actually believes it should be solely a state issue but whether he does or not for real is anyone's guess. They say all kinds of things to get elected. But to me it's a disaster of an idea in the first place. It still had what amounts to a mandate and te only saving grace is that since its a state you can move but who wants to do that if you've got a good job? The idea that the government is the best option to fix the health care system is fundamentally flawed. Hell look at Medicare and Medicaid. Furthermore his health care plan is hardly an example of an effective fix. Even my liberal friend who used to be a hospital pharmacist in Boston said its a huge cluster. So yes, they are different in scope but that's about it. The fact that both even think its a good idea is enough to make me wonder.
On gun control no one is claiming its a pick em but that doesn't mean Romney shouldn't still scare some of us who are now forced to vote for him. He certainly won't champion the cause of gun owners and I'd say would even go along with some regulations. Again, another reason to be pissed this is the best republicans could get
And you think Obama wanted to sign that bill with the concealed carry in national parks legislation? That's funny right there. You need to revisit that legislation and find out exactly why Obama signed it.
What about choosing the guy that oversaw F&F?
and the guy hiding documents that can only be assumed to have his named tied to it authorizing the whole thing.
and the national parks concealed carry reform was a last second amendment added to the credit card consumer act. things like this are commonly done as a way to get little bits of legislation advanced because they know a little thing like that is annoying but obama wouldn't veto the bill because of that amendment.
There is a logical conclusion to the original article. It is basically submitting to the unknown and saying that I wont play because the game is rigged. While this is partially true, not playing unfortunately does not remove you from the results of the game no matter how rigged it is. You are still going to be subjected to the end result (and the laws they enact) whether you like it or not. If you add that to the original argument, then realize that there is no cost to you to vote, the only logical conclusion is that you support the candidate that will do better for you, regardless of how similar that they are. Even if it means that they only do one thing different their entire term, you had a tiny little voice that at least made that one difference.
Going back to the health care issue, I have read all of the Romney Care document, and the best I could do for the Obama care was the summary. I am not going to waste my time reading that piece of horseshit shotgun dog-eared legislation. I did see your earlier post, but I would have to disagree a little on some of the simplified statements. Financially his healthcare is not any better off. In fact it is worse off than Obama care by design. The numbers do not match actual figures and that is because the individual mandate was cut from the bill. It is an all or none proposition with none being the best option. Here is an article that states why. It is covering ObamaCare, but it translates directly to Romney's contribution to this stupid socialist ideal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/22/decisions-decisions-how-high-court-could-rule-on-health/
With no mandate it is worse off than written. People would not pay in until they were sick, then if the government option exists, there would be no funding to support it meaning that the funds would have to come from elsewhere. This is what happened in Massachusetts but the numbers don't reflect it because the cost was taken up in other programs and that is why the state is doing so bad financially on other fronts.
Oh...and don't forget. The Bush administration was responsible for amending the carry in parks rule in 2008. It was a federal court that put the kibosh on it.
And don't forget that Bush said if the AWB renewal crossed his desk, he would sign it.
Just to remind some folks, if so much as one supreme court justice dies or retires in the upcoming 5 1/2 years, (and Obama is re-elected) (or if this happens before January...) then the constitution ceases to exist at all, for the rest of time. Precedence doesn't get un-set, usually, and these people will affect the country more than any president could - even someone 10x worse than Obama. Squeek that ultra-liberal majority in and the next 30-40 years will have nothing but lunatic rulings.
This is reason enough to vote for Romney, if the left gets the Supreme Court you can be sure the constitution and the bill of rights will go by the wayside. This is my number one reason to vote for Romney.
/snip
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 20:09
And don't forget that Bush said if the AWB renewal crossed his desk, he would sign it.
Seriously? Why on earth would that matter? Because:
GWB isn't an option
A new AWB wasn't sent to his desk
Obama only signed the parks legislation because it was attached as an amendment to his cherished CARD Act and there was no way the bill was gonna get by the republicans on it's own. He and the democrats bitched about that amendment the entire time. But the CARD Act was too important to them to not take the opportunity to sign.
Otherwise I'd be voting between the guy whom I know where he stands, and the guy that keeps changing his mind and says that when he said/did things, he didn't really want to, but had to.
That pretty much sums up Obama and the CARD Act.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 20:16
There is a logical conclusion to the original article. It is basically submitting to the unknown and saying that I wont play because the game is rigged. While this is partially true, not playing unfortunately does not remove you from the results of the game no matter how rigged it is. You are still going to be subjected to the end result (and the laws they enact) whether you like it or not. If you add that to the original argument, then realize that there is no cost to you to vote, the only logical conclusion is that you support the candidate that will do better for you, regardless of how similar that they are. Even if it means that they only do one thing different their entire term, you had a tiny little voice that at least made that one difference.
I don't necessarily think anything is rigged. I don't really buy into that premise. I think there is definitely a process and there are folks that control that process to a certain degree. But I don't think anything is rigged. So I really don't accept the premise of that argument. I do agree that I will vote (and so will many others) for the person that most closely matches my own beliefs. As long as that person is part of the Republican party. I do believe party is for more important than the person.
Going back to the health care issue, I have read all of the Romney Care document, and the best I could do for the Obama care was the summary. I am not going to waste my time reading that piece of horseshit shotgun dog-eared legislation. I did see your earlier post, but I would have to disagree a little on some of the simplified statements. Financially his healthcare is not any better off. In fact it is worse off than Obama care by design. The numbers do not match actual figures and that is because the individual mandate was cut from the bill. It is an all or none proposition with none being the best option. Here is an article that states why. It is covering ObamaCare, but it translates directly to Romney's contribution to this stupid socialist ideal.
The original plan that Romney signed is not what's in place today. The whole thing has been bastardized by the democrats that followed Romney. That's why it's in the mess it is.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/22/decisions-decisions-how-high-court-could-rule-on-health/
With no mandate it is worse off than written. People would not pay in until they were sick, then if the government option exists, there would be no funding to support it meaning that the funds would have to come from elsewhere. This is what happened in Massachusetts but the numbers don't reflect it because the cost was taken up in other programs and that is why the state is doing so bad financially on other fronts.
I'll wait to see how SCOTUS rules. I think this one's a tossup.
This is reason enough to vote for Romney, if the left gets the Supreme Court you can be sure the constitution and the bill of rights will go by the wayside. This is my number one reason to vote for Romney.
/snip
Romney is a lefty just like Obama. Who's to say he won't put in a libtard judge as well?
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 20:19
So what's your answer, Ridge? Who is it that's gonna make you happy? Pretty sure some cartoon pony character isn't an option. At least in the real world we live in.
Romney is a lefty just like Obama. Who's to say he won't put in a libtard judge as well?
Romney is not just like Obama, there are enormous differences in the ways they have conducted themselves privately. Obama is at least a marxist, more probably a communist given the people he has associated with over the course of his life.. Romney is nothing like Obama, they may share some similarities but they are not the same.
Please remember that the citizens of Massachusetts voted for their STATE government run healthcare. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted FEDERAL government healthcare on us. Big difference there.
stevelkinevil
06-23-2012, 20:43
So what's your answer, Ridge? Who is it that's gonna make you happy? Pretty sure some cartoon pony character isn't an option. At least in the real world we live in.
LOL and if he says who he wants your response will just be to remind him (as the exclusive purveyor of reality) that his pick is not a realistic choice and to just shut up and vote for whom your told! [Coffee]
So what's your answer, Ridge? Who is it that's gonna make you happy? Pretty sure some cartoon pony character isn't an option. At least in the real world we live in.
I don't have an answer. Like I said multiple times in this thread, I will not be voting for either of them. I probably won't vote for anybody for President.
What's your plan? You going to just keep pushing those goal posts every 4 years when the GOP says "This guy isn't really conservative at all, but it's him or the democrats," and just nod your head in agreement and continue to vote for a GOP candidate that gets more and more liberal?
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 21:28
LOL and if he says who he wants your response will just be to remind him (as the exclusive purveyor of reality) that his pick is not a realistic choice and to just shut up and vote for whom your told! [Coffee]
I don't dictate reality. I just live in it.
Well then you tell me...who is a realistic choice other than Obama or Romney?
You keep preaching Ron Paul. I told you and others months ago that wasn't gonna happen. No way, no how. But I also said I'd support Ron Paul if he won the nomination as a republican.
It's not my fault you can't deal with reality.
Bailey Guns
06-23-2012, 21:29
I don't have an answer. Like I said multiple times in this thread, I will not be voting for either of them. I probably won't vote for anybody for President.
OK. That's certainly an option.
What's your plan? You going to just keep pushing those goal posts every 4 years when the GOP says "This guy isn't really conservative at all, but it's him or the democrats," and just nod your head in agreement and continue to vote for a GOP candidate that gets more and more liberal?
My plan is to do my part in the process. I'll attend my caucus, I'll make my choice known. I'll vote for the person that most closely matches my ideals. And in case you didn't notice the republican party isn't getting more and more liberal. McCain was nominated last time. I think Romney is well to the right of McCain.
At least I'll be doing something.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.