Posted on 09/20/2012 8:03:52 PM PDT by grundle
Her: “I think Obama is the best person for the job.”
Me: “That’s your opinion.” Click
Wish you had told her he also kills U.S. citizens with drones and can “hit” anyone he pleases without legal recourse. Libs don’t get that, in fact, most conservatives don’t either.
No games sparky. Show how it is, in detail, that Obama gets tallied for any vote not cast directly for him.
No excuses. Because if he does, that’s election fraud. Now either show the proof of your ‘belief’ or sit silently.
lol.
I am no fan of Romney and will not be voting for him, but it wouldn't matter anyways as California will easily go to Obama.
Like it or not, you know very well Obama won't get the votes that go to a candidate other than Romney or Obama, but any vote that does not go to Romney is a plus for Obama, and that is a fact. Reality is something you cannot escape.
But that’s not the argument that was made. And I am sick to death of seeing an absolute lie being repeated as fact. Are conservatives now so lazy that they have lost the ability to make their arguments without resorting to liberal tactics? I hope not. If we are then we are as much the problem. And THAT is a fact.
I guess you don’t value your right to vote seeing that you are so willing to throw it away. What other rights are you willing to throw away? Must be nice living on Fantasy Island.
Prove me wrong or sit silently.
Semantics.
You know exactly what the meaning is without nitpicking over the details, and you know exactly what happens if, say, 10% of the voters choose a libertarian over Romney.
Yes, the statement you dislike is a contraction of the specific result, but the result is still the same.
Are you saying that words are meaningless? Bottom line. If a person is too intellectually lazy to form a factual argument, it makes them and the rest of us look like idiots.
Or do you feel we should blurt out whatever and expect everyone to just accept the wisdom/truth of it? Funny, that is exactly how liberals govern.
I won’t go into details, but I used to argue with a Sociology prof I taught with all the time about such things. You’d try to have a reasoned debate with her, you’d get her boxed in where she had nowhere to go but agree with you, and she’d say: “That may be so, but I don’t believe it.” and she’d leave. I may as well have been arguing with a fence post.
If you feel you need to have a poster “show the steps” to their results, that’s up to you, but most people posting here are quite capable of understanding the extrapolation being made.
I don’t see it as being lazy, and yes, the statement is in and of itself annoying on multiple levels, but why get combative over something so trivial?
we used to hire people to do GOTV calls so I talked to the guy that called us on behalf of Obama. I first told him I wasn’t going to vote for his guy and then I asked him about the script, about how many calls his bank make and how they figure it’ll help. He said that the “lines were drawn” and nobody was crossing over and most felt it was a waste of money to keep calling, but they are.
Because the ‘statement’ is a lie.
Why is it so hard for someone to say “That’s a vote less for Romney that he could have against obama.’
It’s accurate. It does not make people look like fools. And it does not resort to the tactics of the left to mock/denigrate someone that isn’t voting lockstep with their personal choice.
Semantics? Call it whatever. But it is the truth and ‘we’ supposedly value truth...don’t we? Bottom line is I’m right.
Nice....
Her: I think that Obama made a promise that sounded good at the time, but once he was in office, he realized that it was a bad promise.
MISSED ZINGER...
ME: THAT'S YOUR OPINION & A FACT LADY!!
I would have said that I am voting for Romney because he is white, as I am.
You can’t really blame people for feeling strongly that wasting votes on people likely to garner 4% of the vote is not a smart thing to do. Have you lived under the tyrannical regime of Obama for the last four years?
I recall a conversation with one of the leftist women one time where it came down to a matter of scientific facts. Sorry, I don't recall exactly what it was about but it came down to her insisting upon something that was scientifically impossible.
When I pointed out the scientific fact, she just replied "That's your opinion" when opinion had nothing to do with it.
The sad thing is she knew she was wrong, but could not violate her leftist religion by admitting to it. She quickly changed the subject.
There is no objective thought on that side. It is all belief and feelings, including a very strong belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.
$16 trillion in debt? They just don't care because they only want to feel good about themselves.
When you engage them remember, to them it's all about feelings. You can't change their minds, but if you can change their 'feelings' by pointing out what their policies lead to, you might have a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.