Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who the hell are you ?
I'll support who I want, where I want, when I want.
In this case, he's less a BOS than the current BOS-In-Chief we have now.
Eat crap and die.
So you are a Repblican, not a conservative. The two aren' mutually inclusive.
When you vote for a liberal for his nations highest office in November, you will demonstrate that you aren't a conservative.
What a sophomoric attempt to suggest that every election is not simply a choice between two candidates.
I'm certain that in your lithium-watch-battery brain you believe you can cause anyone not to vote against this failure in the White House.....
.....wrong.
Sorry to disillusion you but I've been supporting Romney since 2008. No one sent him to me.
So you've been a liberal since 2008? Or has it been longer?
I have to stick up for Amelia here... she has been very consistant in her support for Romney.
I think the thing about it is that there is a whole grab bag of what is considered "conservative" of conflicting views and interest.
You have the economic conservatives- the ones who think the biggest obstacle to them getting or remaining rich is the government. They want more economic freedom, lower taxes more free trade, etc. This is actually a pretty small slice of the electorate, maybe 20%.
Then you have the Social/Religious/Conservatives. They are actually a much larger slice of the electorate and they care about the social issues- abortion, gay rights, guns, teaching evolution in the schools, school prayer, marriage.
A third group, which I consider myself part of, are the ones who are really concerned about security issues and defense. Oddly enough, they won't be an important part of this election because on security issues, we're fatigued with the war. Obama ended Iraq, killed Bin Laden, and is looking for a graceful way out of Afghanistan, which is where most folks are at right now.
Now, the interesting thing was, the first group had pretty much lost the national argument in 1932. Until 1968 or 1980 (take your pick) The only time Republicans won was when they ran guys who admitted, um, yeah, we really do need the government to protect us from those who have more money than humanity.
The second and third groups really weren't on the radar until 1968. FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ were all economic liberals, but they were cultural and security conservatives. It really wasn't until the hippies got control of the Democratic party that we started talking about these other issues like they were serious.
Now, you can make the argument that Romney was a cultural liberal when he ran Massachusetts, which he was. In 2008, he tried to recast himself as a cultural conservative, but no one was buying it. In 2012, he paid minimum lip service, but his selling point is that he's the economic fix it guy. (which again, looks great at a distance, but when you get into the actual sausage making of what he did to AmPad or DDi or GS Steel, not so much.)
I do think that there are people who are supporting him because they just hate Obama with such a passion. I think there are people who sincerely believe that we need a businessman to fix things, and Amelia is one of them. (And unlike the cyncism of most of WMR's supporters, she's sincere.)
I've become disillusioned with the economic conservatives in the last decade, no doubt the result of being employed by people who are happy to work me to death with little concern about my well-being.
Despite my atheism, I considered myself a cultural conservative for a long time, but I realize that the government isn't the place to fix those problems. At least not if we want to have anything resembling freedom.
Security issues, again, Obama's gotten to the right of the GOP on those. Conservatives can complain about how he "bows" to people, and some of his rhetoric is a bit idiotic, but the fact is, he's maintained Bush's policies, which oddly the usual suspects aren't carping about anymore. When was the last time you heard a lib here talk about Gitmo?
so a progressive wants to tell conservatives who or who isnt conservative?
Did you ever think that principles are more important than the label? I dont really care if you call me a conservative or a PoS. Im going to support candidates who more closely reflect my principles. I want people who will govern correctly, which means allowing individuals to govern themselves. Romney will do that for the most part. Far more than Obama will.
Take a look at all the folks here who were supporting Cain or Perry or Gingrich back in December who are trying to convince themselves they love Romney now. It's really a shotgun marriage.
.
So you are a Repblican, not a conservative. The two aren' mutually inclusive.
When you vote for a liberal for his nations highest office in November, you will demonstrate that you aren't a conservative.
What a sophomoric attempt to suggest that every election is not simply a choice between two candidates.
I'm certain that in your lithium-watch-battery brain you believe you can cause anyone not to vote against this failure in the White House.....
.....wrong.
It is.
However, after years of listening to people prattle on about their beliefs and ideology, I am amused to watch them support a liberal for party expediency.
The truth is, you all have no principles. You are merely partisans for the GOP.
If you had principles, you would have true conservative candidates and wouldna't be in this situation.
I'd add one thing, and it's on display here daily - the influence of the wild-eyed absolutists within the party. They've always been around, the Rush wannabees who'd rather fan flames than anything else, but right now they're getting the spotlight.
Weird balance at play here. The wild-eyed absolutists, the group that gives the party 99% of its energy, is the same group that both drives many independents away and animates the opposition. So are these people a net positive or a net negative?
Dunno!
.
I think they are a positive for Romney in that they are the only thing animating his zombie campaign. If it weren't for hatred of Obama, the only people supporting Romney would be millionaires and Mormons. Which is pretty much got him that third place finish in 2008 after spending nine figures running.
Take a look at all the folks here who were supporting Cain or Perry or Gingrich back in December who are trying to convince themselves they love Romney now. It's really a shotgun marriage.
of course, if unemployment had declined as it would have in a normal recession, unemployment would be 6% right now and we'd be measuring Obama for that fifth spot on Mount Rushmore. but it's at 8.2%, which would normally put Obama in the same position as George H. Bush and Jimmy Carter. So this is probably the only thing that makes these independents take a look at Romney.
The interesting things in the polls was a few of them showed Romney pulling ahead for about a week after Santorum dropped out and he clinched it. Which means people were finaly giving him a serious look. And after looking for about a week, Obama has widened his lead back to about 4%.
Yeah, this has been fascinating to watch. Many of them have decided they love Romney now. The most interesting example has been Coulter. That's the problem for absolutists - sometimes they have to bend so hard to stick to their message they run the risk of ending up in traction.
.
"The truth is, you all have no principles."
Pah-leeeeeezzzzzz!
You know very well the entire question is whether or not one wants this oaf to remain in office.
Americans have seen all they need to see:
Right track- wrong track: 32%- 61%
Bye-bye Obama.
Indeed, the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive makes him even more attractive to conservatives, Romney will stay out of the way, act presidential, as another republican shadow government manipulates the Nation from behind the scenes.
(A)nyone (B)ut (O)bama.
"The truth is, you all have no principles."
Pah-leeeeeezzzzzz!
You know very well the entire question is whether or not one wants this oaf to remain in office.
Americans have seen all they need to see:
Right track- wrong track: 32%- 61%
Bye-bye Obama.
Again, if you were a conservative, you'd support a conservative candidate and not simply the guy who stands the best chance of 'getting the oaf out of office'.
You are certainly a Republican, that just doesn't mean much these days.
Indeed, the fact that Romney is weak and indecisive makes him even more attractive to conservatives, Romney will stay out of the way, act presidential, as another republican shadow government manipulates the Nation from behind the scenes.
I once thought that a Mittens presidency might be palatable precisely because he lacks any core principles and thus he must govern as a pragmatist and not an ideologue. But that requires strength. Unfortunately, Mittens is weak and cowardly--not encouraging traits for a man seeking to "lead" a party that has gone off the rails in recent years. The last thing that party needs at the helm right now is another dilettante but, perhaps purposefully, that's exactly what it's chosen.
(A)nyone (B)ut (O)bama.
Truly, a principled position.
Loosely translated:
"I am less concerned with my ideals and more concerned with my team winning the big game! What happens after that? Gee, I haven't thought about that!"
"The truth is, you all have no principles."
Pah-leeeeeezzzzzz!
You know very well the entire question is whether or not one wants this oaf to remain in office.
Americans have seen all they need to see:
Right track- wrong track: 32%- 61%
Bye-bye Obama.
Again, if you were a conservative, you'd support a conservative candidate and not simply the guy who stands the best chance of 'getting the oaf out of office'.
You are certainly a Republican, that just doesn't mean much these days.
Maybe this will be simple enough for you're polemic....
If you had an old jalopy that didn't run....and wanted a Rolls Royce to replace it....but the only car available was a Ford Focus.....
....what would you do?
"The truth is, you all have no principles."
Pah-leeeeeezzzzzz!
You know very well the entire question is whether or not one wants this oaf to remain in office.
Americans have seen all they need to see:
Right track- wrong track: 32%- 61%
Bye-bye Obama.
Again, if you were a conservative, you'd support a conservative candidate and not simply the guy who stands the best chance of 'getting the oaf out of office'.
You are certainly a Republican, that just doesn't mean much these days.
Maybe this will be simple enough for you're polemic....
If you had an old jalopy that didn't run....and wanted a Rolls Royce to replace it....but the only car available was a Ford Focus.....
....what would you do?
I'm more concerned with getting the political leper out of office before he spreads any further than he has.
Dear conservatives, You cant win because the country is not as conservative as you are.
Dear moderate republicans, your ideas have failed yet again and you still back the failed ideas so you cant win either.
The problem with the right is their ideas are complete failures.
None of you accept facts when they prove your ideas wrong.
that stupidity aint flying anymore people are paying attention now.
...if you support the Massachusetts liberal known as Mitt Romney you are not a conservative, you are just a Republican that will support whatever bag of shit they send you.
At least the Paul people have the balls to support a losing candidate that truly ebndorses their beliefs.
Sign in below....
Sorry to disillusion you but I've been supporting Romney since 2008. No one sent him to me.
