And once again, your ENTIRE POST was all about what Obama might do, and why you think he could do it. NOT ONE BIT was about Romney and the consequences of his getting in office.
Most important of all is LIFE'S LESSON which is this: throughout life, in any circumstance, when you make a choice against your better judgment but do it anyway out of pure dread, fear, and panic, it almost always ends up being a mistake.
I'm scared plenty of Obama, believe me. I also KNOW DARNED WELL that Romney is as inclined toward liberal activist judges as Obama. I know the SJC is about the biggest boogie-man card being used to browbeat, bully, and scare people into voting for a FULL BLOWN BIG GOVERNMENT STATIST tyrant Romney for Fear of Omnipotent Obama.
It's a risk either way. Obama is plenty scary -- but in case you haven't looked -- and apparently a lot of people haven't -- Romney is JUST AS SCARY but what makes him more dangerous in the long run is that Romney is a Republican, and if he wins, he would certainly make liberalism more powerful in BOTH parties. If Obama won, especially if he won by such a plurality in the 34-40 percent range, that 60 to 66 percent of the total vote was against him, it would guaranteed make liberalism WEAKER in both parties and would make STRONGER any and all opposition to Obama's attempts to make himself Ruler. THINK IT THROUGH and please ask yourself if your fear of Obama hasn't reached a point of hysteria.
"Obama won, especially if he won by such a plurality in the 34-40 percent range, that 60 to 66 percent of the total vote was against him, it would guaranteed make liberalism WEAKER in both parties"
He's already ruling by fiat despite his presumed support from RINOs and congressional dems.
He continues to appoint minions to critical, unfettered, positions from which they rule by "procedures", "priorities", and personal opinions that often directly oppose both law and the constitution.
He has the full support of the media and a pot load of special interests, including "labor" unions going out in force (and paid for it) to intimidate any opposition.
...It's a long list.
But you think that he'd stop all that if elected by a slim margin because you convinced enough people to throw a protest vote to Ron Paul or some other "pure" candidate??
It seems like what we have here is not just the “ can’t see the forest for the trees” but in fact “the trees for the bark” (aka “barking”). You appear to have your nose so close to the bark of one specific tree, (ie Romney is a less than ideal pubbie candidate), that you can’t even see all of the tree your nose is up against, let alone the entire forest.
I’ve had the pleasure of having lived in a “utopian” society created by commie/socialist idiots/tyrants, have you?
It is NOT hysteria which causes me to so thoroughly fear the results of another four years of the OB team - it is experience based factual knowledge of why EVERY SINGLE such attempt at providing “utopia” to the masses has failed and will ALWAYS, in the end fail.
Try standing in line for four or five hours for a single bucket of coal to heat an entire apartment with for a week or more, then tell me again that I shouldn’t be worried about the OB plan for America’s utopian future.
Your admission that the 60% is bogus relative to what will ACTUALLY happen in November says a lot about your seemingly well thought out statements that are little more than a thinly veiled attack on Romney. You have a right to dislike him, but why fog your positions with such Democratic Machine/Lamestream Press drivel?
I’m more concerned about some basic issues with Romney, relative to November, that don’t necessarily bother me, personally. Will enough voters be able to look past the Mormon issue to defeat OB? Can the same be said about his image as a corporate raider, viewed as a guy who went around busting up companies and sacrificing the American Worker while doing so? Will he be viewed by too many as a “spoiled rich kid”, grown up to be a “selfish capitalistic blood sucker”?
Can you provide us with ONE single quote from Romney about “... fundamentally changing America ...”? All I’ve heard is a desire to bring back the historical set of attitudes and beliefs that made this country the number one destination in the world for oppressed, but ambitious people. I haven’t heard him propose changes to make it easier for the lazy, shiftless, entitled takers to prosper here, have you?
It’s your choice to equate these two candidates, but in my common sense view, their is NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER.
One is an complete unknown of suspicious origins and accomplishments, splashed on the scene by a well oiled organized group bent on the destruction of this country. He is a self proclaimed socialist if not commie or closet muzzie who has NEVER held a REAL job in his entire adult life, and who has DEMONSTRABLY done more damage to this nation, (and by extension the ENTIRE world) than ALL the elected officials that preceded him.
The other candidate is a well known, well established family man who espouses the mainstream characteristics of this country and has been an active businessman for decades.
A “protest vote” is is a fine and noble thing, in moderate circumstances. BUT, when the future of life as we have known it is in the balance, (all studies show we are nearing the tipping point for there being more taking voters than producing voters), we CANNOT afford “protest” votes from producers.
Each and EVERY vote is critical - remember how few votes were at stake in the Gore/Bush election. (I won’t even address the voter fraud issue and which group, takers or producers have the most bogus voters in their camp.)
Using common sense, it’s a slam dunk decision, at least for me.