For those who believe the 'Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils' idea & lovers of freedom everywhere

[Bailey Guns]

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]

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.

[Mazin]

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.

Very well put.

[tmckay2]

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]

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.blogs...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.

[tmckay2]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[cstone]

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.