no.
There were plenty of people on here and other websites and boards that claimed ideological purity by either not supporting Romney or just throwing a vote away on a candidate that had no chance to win, just to send a message.
Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would “destroy the party”. Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didn’t attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
So no I won’t shut up.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty. More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
I fear 2014 will be too late.
If you don’t like what I have to say, fine but please don’t tell me to stop.
Okay,
Have fun with that.
Let me know how that works out for you, as far as saving America.
Do.
EXACTLY! WELL SAID!
Ok, you have to understand that a rejection of Romney is not a plea for ideological purity -- but a plea against homogenous ideology as Obama.
They are both socialists, and Statists.
Indeed, the primaries and Republican National Convention were dirty -- with "democrat-style" manipulations:
The teleprompter incident, where the 'result' of the votes appeared before the vote had finished.
The bus-driver incident, where an entire delegation was forced to miss the rule-change vote.
The proposed rule changes themselves, which showed the statist/totalitarian heart of the GOP's elite.
The retroactive rule-change in the primaries to deny Ron Paul supporters delegates (and gave them to Romney) because they successfully rules-lawyered delegates.
Are those the sorts of things we want in our leadership? Are those things even what "conservatism" is about?
If by 'conservatism' you mean "keeping things the same", then yes, it is what conservatism is about.
Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would “destroy the party”.
That was doomed to happen: the republican party stood for nothing, and so fell.
Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didn’t attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
None of that is why I did not vote Romney; I did not vote for Romney because he is the same as Obama: a socialist. Ideologically the only difference is that Romney is a Fabian-socialist (incrementalism) and Obama is more of a holistic-actor.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty.
Really? When I was in the Army, in `08/`09, it was made perfectly clear to me that there would be no challenge of Obama's qualifications; this has been borne-out across the civilian-world as well. Those in power have no respect for the Law (see LTC Lakin's courts martial), and this will not likely change with mere elections. (Even if we got a 'god' President, the congress has no problem passing contra-constitutional laws [see the NFA and GCA], and the courts have no compunction against allowing it [see Wickard, Raich, Kelo, and/or Affordable Care Act]).
More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
NO! ROMNEY WOULD NOT PUT US ON A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE MOST HE WOULD DO IS MAKE SUPERFICIAL CHANGES: A KINDER, GENTLER (MORE ACCEPTABLE) TYRANNY.
If you don’t like what I have to say, fine but please don’t tell me to stop.
I've not told you to stop; but your whole argument for a socialist is disgusting.