[StAnDeliver]

Finny, you sound deranged, and thusly void of content. Enjoy your 3rd Party!

[Finny]

Seriously, please explain how voting for a guy who has a record of ADVANCING five major issues you, as a conservative, stand against, is not deranged?

[Finny]

First, I am betting that StandDeliver won't have the guts to read through and answer the six pretty straightforward (mostly yes-or-no) questions in this post, but here goes:

Enjoy your 3rd Party!

Enjoy finding out that Romney has zero intention of rolling over to conservatives once he gets in the White House and plays political hardball to keep conservative Republicans "in their place," and enjoy discovering that by letting fear bully you into voting for a statist Republican, YOU contributed to delivering a total progressive statist stronghold on BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE.

I don't think you sound deranged, actually. I think you sound desperate, like someone who hasn't really thought things out very far.

Truly, are you aware of the things Romney has actually done while in office? Or do you think I'm just making them up?

Are you okay with Republicans pushing state-run health care? YES OR NO???

Are you okay with Republicans pushing the full embrace of the global warming environmentalist tyranny? YES OR NO?

Are you okay with Republicans pushing taxpayer-funded on-demand abortion? YES OR NO?

Are you okay with Republicans pushing the legitimacy of appointing activist liberal judges? YES OR NO?

Are you okay with Republicans pushing legislation that will force people to accept, and punish them if they peacefully reject, open homosexuality in their society, from their kids' schools and Scouting groups all the way up to the U.S. military? YES OR NO?

Seriously, you owe it to your country and to yourself to truly ponder those questions rather than knee-jerking "ABO!" in answer. I assume your answer is "No!" to all five of them.

If so, you must next ask yourself: Why are you willing to vote for Romney if you're against all five of those things?

And you need to really, carefully examine and analyze that answer.

The "derangement" spin you like to put on my take is a self-defense mechanism to justify your doing something you know goes against all common sense: voting FOR arsenic because you want so desperately to get rid of cynanide. And I'm telling you don't vote for either one, vote so that whichever one wins is as diluted and weak as possible. Forcing a plurality win, the lower the the percentage the better, is THE ONLY WAY to weaken either poisonous victor.

If you think my thinking thus is "void of content," you are desperately lying to yourself, and again, need to ask yourself WHY.