Posted on 07/19/2012 7:08:42 PM PDT by Praxeologue
(2) "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country"
>> NT, you guys are dabbling in Fascism
That comment does not make sense to me. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on exactly who “we guys” are and exactly how we are “dabbling in fascism”?
>> When it comes to the totalitarians in the world, they are all the same.
I fail to see how that is relevant, as neither Obama nor Romney are (or are likely to get away with being) totalitarians — in spite of the hyperbole you have whipped yourself up into believing. However, based on his track record of executive order abuse, it is plain to see that Obama would *love* to be an Il Duce totalitarian. So I want him GONE. I’ve not seen any such evidence in Romney — again except for the unsubstantiated hyperventilating of the RDS faction here. If you have genuine evidence to the contrary, I have an open mind.
>> You brought in a bad candidate.
FRiend, I didn’t bring *any* candidate in. I was a Perry=>Gingrich supporter and I ended up voting for Gingrich in the Texas primary. We contributed to Gingrich and (so far) no other POTUS campaign.
I do, however, proudly admit to being a practical man living in Realville (as Limbaugh puts it). I have carefully examined and rejected the argument that Romney is as bad as or worse than Obama. In fact, I have seen ample evidence that there is MORE daylight between Romney and Obama than thare was between McCain and Obama. I held my nose and voted for the lesser evil in 2008. I cannot find a rational reason not to vote for Romney over the CONFIRMED TRACK RECORD EVIL that IS obama in 2012.
FRegards
Is THAT offensive? (The question of 'offensiveness' must keep Mitt up at night.)
Why do we point; precisely where to hit us. . .
>> WHO is the useful idiot? The one who mistakes Obama for the enemy, when the real enemy is statism.
Please explain to me precisely how re-electing Obama strikes a blow against statism.
You are clearly too far gone to reason with.
I think that’s another way of saying my argument is too sound. :-)
Either your position is untenable, or your capabilities to reason on it are lacking. I know you to be a well-educated and articulate man (when you choose to be), so I’m going to reject the latter possibility and go with the former one.
Very well. Good night, may God bless you, and FRegards
Why should "you people" be denied the opportunity to learn more about his financial history? What is he ashamed of?
I don't pretend to have any answers to those questions, but his attitude strikes me as just plain weird.
You invade and ruin every thread with the same tired stuff, the same attacks, the same hatred, the same vituperative language, the same links and pictures as if people haven’t looked at them a thousand times before. You know, it does not help your argument at all. Just the opposite.
Is there a video? I just read she never said “you people”.
Romney bought the stale leftover pizza because the man could not sell it in this economy, and Romney sent it to Obama with that clear message, to mock him. It was very funny at the time.
The coalition partners are known variously as the GOP-e, Countryclubbers, Bushbots, Mittbots, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Libertarians, Traditionalists, Religious Right, etc.
Lots of names there, and all of them mean something a little bit different, but one of the RULES in coalition politics is that, in general, you have to agree on the big picture stuff ~ and in the United States that means you agree, in general, on the identity and characteristics of the guy at the top of the ballot ~ who runs for President.
What we have here is a situation where the GOP-e and the Mittbots misused the party's electoral process to select a bad candidate who does not have broad support.
Romney is not supported by the base AND HE DOES NOT CARE!
This is a formula for total disaster.
“They” are most definitely a separate and distinct underclass of individuals worthy of being addressed as “you people”.
As for Conservatives...the number of people who proclaim themselves to be conservatives, and yet have not actually voted in any election for many years, is rather telling of just how “conservative” they really are.
Governor Rick Scott might be able to purge a few thousand illegals, nonresidents, felons and dead voters from the registered Florida voter lists, but he can't get all the supposed majority of conservatives off their lazy behinds to do their basic civic duty.
Do you pride yourself on how you got out of jury duty?
Many other “conservatives” do.
Do you support or encourage the young people you know to learn about and get involved in leadership positions that directly affect them?
Were your feelings hurt that the candidate you backed didn't win?
Are you going to quit, take your toys and go home?
Did you even actually bother to vote in your state primary?
So, no reason to be offended. . .
I have no problem with Ann Romney talking down to the lamestream media. And she’s right too.
First of all, what I propose risks re-electing Obama; it hardly ensures it, especially as Obama is in serious trouble with his own supporters, as indicated in polls, news stories, and opinions expressed both on MSM discussion forums and in casual conversations overheard, by folks who voted for him last time. Obama's support is WEAK.
When I vote third-party, when a Green Weenie Tree Hugger votes third-party, when a Ron Paul type votes third-party, when an Independent votes third-party, when a disillusioned Democrat votes third-party, and when a committed Libertarian votes third-party, each one of those votes will favor neither Obama nor Romney. Those votes will be neutral with regard to the outcome of O v R. IT'S MATH.
However, every one of those third-party votes, no matter who cast them, will count toward reducing the popular mandate of whichver guy wins, Obama or Romney. Both Obama and Romney are statists. I will vote third-party if only to prevent Romney from getting a disastrous landslide, because I know (and you do, too, in your heart) that Romney and moderates and the MSM and Democrats would spin what was actually a referendum against Obama, as a resounding popular mandate FOR Romney's "progressive style of governing -- see, the People voted for it in droves!"
Arrogant elitist liberal Romney with a "popular mandate" and the numbers to back up his claims, would marginalize conservative Republicans and tell them to sit down and be quiet like good little children because HE is the one who won, not them. A Romney landslide would be as bad as an Obama landslide; the difference is that there's virtually zero chance of an Obama landslide, but a very real danger of a Romney one.
Now, if you would be so kind, please explain to me precisely how voting for a statist, as Romney's record wholly confirms him to be, strikes a blow against statism.
Explain to me how electing -- and risking a popular-mandate landslide for -- a guy who is on record as supporting the homosexual agenda, supporting state-run health care, supporting the global warming agenda, and whose political past is replete with appointing liberal activist judges and creating tax-funded abortion on demand -- explain to me precisely how electing that guy as the defacto head of the Republican party, strikes a blow against statism.
Please proceed.
>> Your argument is based on fear.
That’s at least partly true. I’m voting AGAINST a KNOWN evil. But I don’t see how it matters.
>> the Republican party is a coalition.
OK
>> one of the RULES in coalition politics is that, in general, you have to agree on the big picture stuff ~ and in the United States that means you agree, in general, on the identity and characteristics of the guy at the top of the ballot ~ who runs for President.
The majority of the coalition has to agree, yes.
>> What we have here is a situation where the GOP-e and the Mittbots misused the party’s electoral process to select a bad candidate who does not have broad support.
Ah, here’s where we part ways (in logic if not in ideology).
a) What exactly do you mean by MIS-used? and
b1) If Romney didn’t have broad support, how did he win the primaries going away? and
b2) If Romney didn’t have broad support, how is he neck-and-neck with an incumbent president, pulling away?
Logic pretty much FORCES me to conclude that Romney, like it or not, IS the candidate with BROAD support, even if he’s not MY guy. So, my guy(s) lost and Romney won. I’m not thrilled with that outcome, but what do I do now? Suck it up and vote for the clear lesser of the evils? Or throw a tantrum and help ensure a KNOWN HORRIBLE EVIL ROTTEN outcome?
And: no one has clearly shown me how Obama winning another term will be good for the nation, or conservatism, or me personally, any of those. On the other hand it’s pretty clear that an Obama that need not worry about re-election can and will be poised to wreak utter havoc on the country I love.
In my carefully considered view I must do what is *best*, even if it’s clearly only *marginally* better.
Gee, I find that sorta curious. I really don't know very many folks who prepare their tax returns two or three years in advance.
Is there a TurboTax app for that?
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.