Dear "Conservatives"....

[Liability]

I will honor it, if The ONE does win. God forbid.

It was just a bet.

This is just a message board; it's not life. So, as is always the case, you are wrong again.

Your opinion is very valuable to me.

You have more balls than him, Liability. He would never wager such a bet.

You're right, I wouldn't wager such a pointless, stupid bet.

We know he's right. You have no balls whatsoever. And no dick, either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoHds88Slk]This man has no dick... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

I suppose we should also consider the possibilty you could be quite insane.

Possibility?

Let's compare notes.

Let's see. There's me. And there's you.

Are YOU the point of reference here?

Don't be so defensive.



If it makes you feel better, I agree that you have balls, m'k?

Sheeze.

Who is being defensive here?

 

[Liability]

You have more balls than him, Liability. He would never wager such a bet.

His avie is a cow with no udders and it's clearly not a bull, either, if you catch the drift.

So, yeah. I think it's safe to say that neither he nor his avie have any.

Wow, you're sharp.

And you remain forever dull.

 

[Samson]

Possibility?

Let's compare notes.

Let's see. There's me. And there's you.

Are YOU the point of reference here?

Don't be so defensive.



If it makes you feel better, I agree that you have balls, m'k?

Sheeze.

Who is being defensive here?

Well, if you insist, then I agree you have no balls.

Better now?

 

[Liability]

Don't be so defensive.



If it makes you feel better, I agree that you have balls, m'k?

Sheeze.

Who is being defensive here?

Well, if you insist, then I agree you have no balls.

Better now?

So, I again have to wonder if you are the point of reference for a dissertation about sanity vs insanity.

In any event. The count stands as recorded. Me: two balls and one brain.

Didja know that cowman has no balls, no dick and only one brain -- cell?

Word!

Your tally is as yet unknown.

 

[Samson]

Who is being defensive here?

Well, if you insist, then I agree you have no balls.

Better now?

So, I again have to wonder if you are the point of reference for a dissertation about sanity vs insanity.

In any event. The count stands as recorded. Me: two balls and one brain.

Didja know that cowman has no balls, no dick and only one brain -- cell?

Word!

Your tally is as yet unknown.

I plan to keep my tally in my pants.

 

[Liability]

Well, if you insist, then I agree you have no balls.

Better now?

So, I again have to wonder if you are the point of reference for a dissertation about sanity vs insanity.

In any event. The count stands as recorded. Me: two balls and one brain.

Didja know that cowman has no balls, no dick and only one brain -- cell?

Word!

Your tally is as yet unknown.

I plan to keep my tally in my pants.

You keep your brain cells in your pants?

That might qualify you as a dick head!

 

[thereisnospoon]

...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 endorses their beliefs.

Sign in below....

Ron Paul? Please stop the nonsense. Paul was never a viable candidate.
Paul has skills. Unfortunately he is a shrill and emotional individual with unusual ideas that make Paul as a whole, non-presidential.

I am unsure why his ideas about following the constitution are considered "unusual".
Oh wait, it is "unusual" for today's crop of politicians to follow the constitution.

Paul following the Constitution is a myth. Paul is a politician. Which means when he's not kissing babies, he's stealing their candy.
Anyway, Paul's tone in several of the debates came off as too emotional. His voice rising several octaves. The POTUS cannot do that. EVER.

 

[Cowman]

You have more balls than him, Liability. He would never wager such a bet.

You're right, I wouldn't wager such a pointless, stupid bet.

We know he's right. You have no balls whatsoever. And no dick, either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoHds88Slk]This man has no dick... - YouTube[/ame]

If you need to prove to yourself you have balls and a dick by betting you'll leave an internet forum over the results of an election... then by all means go for it.

 

[Liability]

You're right, I wouldn't wager such a pointless, stupid bet.

We know he's right. You have no balls whatsoever. And no dick, either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoHds88Slk]This man has no dick... - YouTube[/ame]

If you need to prove to yourself you have balls and a dick by betting you'll leave an internet forum over the results of an election... then by all means go for it.

Yeah. Because that was the point.

Cowman you are indeed ready for your life's calling: Fertilizer.

You've got nothing. And it shows.

 

[Cowman]

We know he's right. You have no balls whatsoever. And no dick, either.

If you need to prove to yourself you have balls and a dick by betting you'll leave an internet forum over the results of an election... then by all means go for it.

Yeah. Because that was the point.

Cowman you are indeed ready for your life's calling: Fertilizer.

You've got nothing. And it shows.

I'm not not pretending I have anything. I find it funny... ever since I said you seemed to lack sophistication that I thought you had over your fellow conservatives, you've been trying to hound me again and again in every thread I go to. I almost never received any feedback from you before that moment.

Guess I had enough of something. Fertilizer, I think it is...

 

[Liability]

If you need to prove to yourself you have balls and a dick by betting you'll leave an internet forum over the results of an election... then by all means go for it.

Yeah. Because that was the point.

Cowman you are indeed ready for your life's calling: Fertilizer.

You've got nothing. And it shows.

I'm not not pretending I have anything. * * * *

Good. Since you plainly don't.

Rant some more, now. I need a good night's sleep.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nah. It's not hate.

I don't call him a tyrant, by the way. But his policies are horrendous and damaging to America. They do have the potential to destroy America. I loath his politics. He needs to GO.

So -- yeah -- at this point, anyone but him again. And I still don't hate the man. I hate his political ideology and actions.

From the Department of What Other Reason Do You Need to Prefer A Conservative Candidate?

In case you imagined that you just scored some fabulous interwebz "gotchya," you should be advised. You didn't.

There is zero inconsistency. Carter sucked balls. President Obama is worse.

I still don't hate the man. I loathe his policies.

Except you were talking about Romney.

Specifically why conservatives shouldn't support Romney.

 

[Liability]

In case you imagined that you just scored some fabulous interwebz "gotchya," you should be advised. You didn't.

There is zero inconsistency. Carter sucked balls. President Obama is worse.

I still don't hate the man. I loathe his policies.

Except you were talking about Romney.

Specifically why conservatives shouldn't support Romney.

Except you had changed the topic. I was talking about President Obama. He sucks worse than Carter sucked -- which was massively.

And Conservatives SHOULD support Romney in order to kick out of Office the worst disaster in the history of the American Presidency.

Try to keep up, this time. G2H.

And, oh, by the way: in the NOMINATING round, I did not support Romney because he was (and is) too liberal.

But this is no longer the nominating round. That's effectively over.

NOW it's a head to head match up between the practically Marxist incumbent and a businessman who -- while still too liberal for my political preference -- is a damn staunch conservative compared to the incumbent.

 

[geauxtohell]

Except you had changed the topic. I was talking about President Obama. He sucks worse than Carter sucked -- which was massively.

LMAO.

The topic is Romney. I should know. I started the thread.

You previously state words to the effect that conservatives shouldn't support

Oh, is this rich!

Did I hear someone say "kiss of death"?

Jimmy Carter wants Mitt Romney to win GOP nomination - YouTube

From the Department of What Other Reason Do You Need to Prefer A Conservative Candidate?

Then on this thread you said you left the GOP because it moved away from conservativism. Now you support the GOP candidate who you previously stated wasn't conservative enough. You've changed your tune.

All of the following.....

And Conservatives SHOULD support Romney in order to kick out of Office the worst disaster in the history of the American Presidency.

Try to keep up, this time. G2H.

And, oh, by the way: in the NOMINATING round, I did not support Romney because he was (and is) too liberal.

But this is no longer the nominating round. That's effectively over.

NOW it's a head to head match up between the practically Marxist incumbent and a businessman who -- while still too liberal for my political preference -- is a damn staunch conservative compared to the incumbent.

May be your rationale, but by virtue of your actions, you are more interested in helping the GOP move away from conservatism then holding them to the fire.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except you had changed the topic. I was talking about President Obama. He sucks worse than Carter sucked -- which was massively.

LMAO.

The topic is Romney. I should know. I started the thread.

You previously state words to the effect that conservatives shouldn't support

From the Department of What Other Reason Do You Need to Prefer A Conservative Candidate?

Then on this thread you said you left the GOP because it moved away from conservativism. Now you support the GOP candidate who you previously stated wasn't conservative enough. You've changed your tune.

All of the following.....

And Conservatives SHOULD support Romney in order to kick out of Office the worst disaster in the history of the American Presidency.

Try to keep up, this time. G2H.

And, oh, by the way: in the NOMINATING round, I did not support Romney because he was (and is) too liberal.

But this is no longer the nominating round. That's effectively over.

NOW it's a head to head match up between the practically Marxist incumbent and a businessman who -- while still too liberal for my political preference -- is a damn staunch conservative compared to the incumbent.

May be your rationale, but by virtue of your actions, you are more interested in helping the GOP move away from conservatism then holding them to the fire.

Not at all. Sure we would prefer to have a pure, hard core conservative who is also competent, experience, and capable in the White House. But we are not willing to throw the country under the bus because most conservatives chose somebody different than we would have chosen. It is one thing to be of strong convictions and quite another to be a spoiled brat who takes his ball and goes home if he cant have his way.

There will always be times when we are denied the choice of doing what we believe to be the absolute right thing, and are forced to choose the best thing of imperfect options.

 

[Foxfyre]

LMAO.

The topic is Romney. I should know. I started the thread.

You previously state words to the effect that conservatives shouldn't support



Then on this thread you said you left the GOP because it moved away from conservativism. Now you support the GOP candidate who you previously stated wasn't conservative enough. You've changed your tune.

All of the following.....



May be your rationale, but by virtue of your actions, you are more interested in helping the GOP move away from conservatism then holding them to the fire.

Not at all. Sure we would prefer to have a pure, hard core conservative who is also competent, experience, and capable in the White House. But we are not willing to throw the country under the bus because most conservatives chose somebody different than we would have chosen. It is one thing to be of strong convictions and quite another to be a spoiled brat who takes his ball and goes home if he cant have his way.

There will always be times when we are denied the choice of doing what we believe to be the absolute right thing, and are forced to choose the best thing of imperfect options.

You had your chance to pick a conservative with.....well...no there wasn't one really.in fact you haven't had a chance to pick one in quite some time now.

Mitten is a liberal...
rick is a theocon
newt is a central government,bigger government type.
cain was a moron.
bachman was a female rick.
huntsman a centerist but right leaning.
perry,see bush or mittens.

The reality is you just want obama out,you want to win, and will back anyone who will get you what you desire.

You simply hate the fact its not your guy in power..

You're damn right I want Obama out. He has been the most irresponsible, dangerous, and/or incompetent President we have ever had. And we haven't had a primary election in our state but the nominee is usually decided by the time we have an opportunity to vote. Any one of the people you listed, whatever their shortcomings or weaknesses might be, would be head and shoulders less irresponsible, less dangerous, and less incompetent than Barack Obama.

Nobody on the planet is more hardcore conservative than I am on truly conservative issues. (Those are very different from rightwing perspectives on social issues that I may or may not agree with other people about.) I would very much like to have a true conservative, i.e. classical liberal, in the White House that would bring the kind of instincts, talent, ability, experience, and insights to really start turning this country back to its conservative, i.e. classical liberal roots.

We don't have anybody like that running for President in any party.

So we choose from the imperfect choices we have that will produce the best deal for the country. And any choice that makes it more likely that Barack Obama will be re-elected is not the best deal for this country.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

The choice is clear, either vote for a far left liberal (Obama) or a moderate liberal (Romney).

As a conservative I imagine you'll sit this one out.

 

[The Infidel]

The reality is you just want obama out,you want to win, and will back anyone who will get you what you desire.

You simply hate the fact its not your guy in power..

Yep... I/we do want Obama out.

As for just wanting our guy in power.... George Washington and Ronald Reagan are dead, so your wrong on that one.

I do hate that the fact that the 'guy', and I use the term loosely, that is in power hates America.

So yeah... that bothers me.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The choice is clear, either vote for a far left liberal (Obama) or a moderate liberal (Romney).

As a conservative I imagine you'll sit this one out.

I already posted a response to this once but must not have hit the button? Anyhow if the other post shows up, I apologize for the duplication.

Anyhow the point I meant to make was that I don't think conservatives, at least those who embrace the conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism, of the Founders will sit this one out. They love their country too much to do that. The pure ideologues, however, may sit it out or vote for somebody who can't win out of spite.