I can still respectfully disagree, although I would remind them that a vote for Romney is like voting for cancer, as opposed to voting for a .40 caliber slug to the forehead.
I understand those who would vote for cancer over the slug, since it would give a person a chance to get their affairs in order.
I'm in a state, GA, where I have the luxury of voting my conscious -- it's almost a foregone solution GA will go for Romney. But for those in less-certain states, I do understand voting for the slower death of America. A day delayed is a day lived, right? I get that. I might not necessarily agree, but I do get it.
Lived. But like you, I’d rater die on my feet than live knowing I helped wreck my own ideology. And my country.
The extra days they gain will be days of misery when Mitt reverts to type and does the abortion/gun grabbing etc. Without our principles, I don’t think there is a country to save.
Well said. I would say, however, that if the FR policy is to oppose the GOP nominee if it is Romney, then it ought to try to turn it into a positive course of action and find some other candidate to get behind, instead of simply being against Romney.
Hard to do, as no one with any hope of winning is running third-party/independent. But that could still change.
On the other hand, I have seen it said (on another, non-political, forum), that compared to Obama, Romney is George Washington. There is some truth to that. Obama is the most anti-American president we’ve had. It’s not even close. He’s also the most inept, idiotic man to sit in the Oval Office. It amazes me that anyone could have voted to elect him in the first place. It absolutely angers me that anyone would even consider voting for him after four years of his incompetence and stupidity (not talking about those opting out of voting GOP, but those liberals who actually still actively support him).
Your analogy is flawed. A choice between 0baMao and Romney is like a murderer giving you a choice between being shot or beheaded. If you choose either one you have just acceded to being killed which is suicide. The only moral and ethical choice is to force the murderer to choose instead of participating in it.
Lazamataz: “I understand those who would vote for cancer over the slug, since it would give a person a chance to get their affairs in order.”
Well put. That’s pretty much the dilemma we’re facing. I don’t buy the argument that Romney is exactly the same as Obama. Romney doesn’t hate America. It’s pretty sad when an election comes down to that, isn’t it?
There are good conservatives on both sides of the dilemma. Mark Levin would vote for an orange juice can to stop Obama. Is Mark a RINO? I don’t think so. I think he’s making the decision you so appropriately described, choosing cancer in the hope a cure might be found before it’s too late. A bullet to the brain, i.e. re-electing Obama, is terminal.
I just can’t bring myself to criticize people on either side of the debate. Sometimes there’s no good choices in life, and it simply comes down to deciding how to die. Personally? I plan to sit this out and let death come as it may.
FReegards!
It is premature (Gingrich is still in the race), but given what both of those people have said in the past, it seems rude and condescending to write in the name of a person who will by that time have urged you to vote for someone else.
Why not vote for a minor candidate who is on the ballot and actively seeking your vote, rather than mocking someone who will have by that time endorsed a different person. “I respect you so much I want you to be President, and disrepect you so much I will ignore who you endorse”.
But like I say, it’s premature — we can still support Gingrich, since he’s still a candidate.
As to your comments about “slower death”, I’d argue the point but we are not allowed to discuss that in this forum.