Dear "Conservatives"....

[blastoff]

...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....

Heed your own advice and geaux...

 

[JamesInFlorida]

...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....

Well said. Unfortunately there's so many brainless zombies who will fall in line and do whatever the GOP tells them to do. It's kind of sad how in the end they can't even think for themselves.

 

[dblack]

The difference between a direct election and voting for electors does exist, but the distinction is quite minor in the discussion. Either way, you are voting for President (directly or one step removed).

I'm not talking about the electoral college. I'm talking about the difference between "voting" and "choosing". They're not the same thing. The assumption that they are leads to exactly the kind of il-logic you're perpetuating in this thread. It promotes the idea that voting for a candidate who doesn't win is a 'wasted vote' (which it isn't) and encourages people to game the system distorting the outcome.

Voting isn't a horse race. You don't 'lose' if the candidate you vote for isn't elected. You only lose if you fail to vote your conscience out of fear, or by ignorantly assuming your vote is wasted if it's not for the winner. By that view, none of us should ever vote for anyone other than the candidate currently leading in the polls.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference between a direct election and voting for electors does exist, but the distinction is quite minor in the discussion. Either way, you are voting for President (directly or one step removed).

I'm not talking about the electoral college. I'm talking about the difference between "voting" and "choosing". They're not the same thing. The assumption that they are leads to exactly the kind of il-logic you're perpetuating in this thread. It promotes the idea that voting for a candidate who doesn't win is a 'wasted vote' (which it isn't) and encourages people to game the system distorting the outcome.

Voting isn't a horse race. You don't 'lose' if the candidate you vote for isn't elected. You only lose if you fail to vote your conscience out of fear, or by ignorantly assuming your vote is wasted if it's not for the winner. By that view, none of us should ever vote for anyone other than the candidate currently leading in the polls.

Voting your conscience is one thing. Nobody is saying that anybody should not do that.

But do not think that a vote for Romney, most especially by those of us who would have preferred another candidate, will not also be voting our consicience. When voting one's conscience has unintended negative consequences, the wise and thoughtful have to think about that.

 

[Liability]

The difference between a direct election and voting for electors does exist, but the distinction is quite minor in the discussion. Either way, you are voting for President (directly or one step removed).

I'm not talking about the electoral college. I'm talking about the difference between "voting" and "choosing". They're not the same thing. The assumption that they are leads to exactly the kind of il-logic you're perpetuating in this thread. It promotes the idea that voting for a candidate who doesn't win is a 'wasted vote' (which it isn't) and encourages people to game the system distorting the outcome.

Voting isn't a horse race. You don't 'lose' if the candidate you vote for isn't elected. You only lose if you fail to vote your conscience out of fear, or by ignorantly assuming your vote is wasted if it's not for the winner. By that view, none of us should ever vote for anyone other than the candidate currently leading in the polls.

One VOTES for the electors. In the process, one votes for President.

You can call it "choosing," but that doesn't make it true.

And I am not the one perpetuating illogic. You are.

Your silly proposition is that it's ok to vote for candidate "X" instead of for Candidate "A," who you prefer, even though that means that there is an increased risk that candidate "B," whom you cannot abide, will get re-elected.

You make zero sense. Stating and re-stating your silly and empty contention doesn't make it any more meritorious. It started off at zero and that's where it remains.

I have NEVER said that voting for a candidate who doesn't win is a wasted vote. I didn't say it and I don't contend any such thing. So don't try to restate what I maintain with your facile strawman crap. That shit don't fly.

What is a wasted vote is voting for some schmuck who has no chance of winning when it entails the risk of getting the disaster (whom you most urgently wish to avoid winning) elected. You wasted a vote to get the other guy elected thereby defeating the one you urgently want to lose.

Do try to keep up.

 

[Taylee]

Only if you're easily impressed. I'm betting that you are....lol.

Something tells me that cognition (or psychic abilities) is not your forte.....lol.

Really?

I am sure you are going to tell me how big an old' boy you are.

This will be exciting!

Cognition.....

Wow. Now are you going to impress us with $.30 words?

 

[Taylee]

You're projecting....just like a typical leftie....tsk tsk.

Damn straight I'm saying ANYbody but Obama. After what he's done to the country and is still trying to do TO America and TO Americans....anyone would be better for America than the Liar-In-Chief currently residing in the WH.

I just love how lefties are constantly trying to tell those of us on the right what we are and what we believe in. It's a constant in the universe. No matter what forum you visit, they're always there, spewing the same BS and garbage....lol.

So you aren't conservative, you just hate Obama.

If you were conservative, it wouldn't be acceptable for you to replace one liberal with another.

You do just hate him. You yourself posted in this thread saying anyone but obama.you can't even stay consistent with the 5 posts you have...this is just sad.

 

[Taylee]

Link....to where I called you a commie, marxist, stalinist or maoist?

You must love this. You're the one making $hit up as you go along.

I just love how lefties are constantly trying to tell those of us on the right what we are and what we believe in. It's a constant in the universe. No matter what forum you visit, they're always there, spewing the same BS and garbage....lol.

So you aren't conservative, you just hate Obama.

If you were conservative, it wouldn't be acceptable for you to replace one liberal with another.

Just like conservatives calling us commies and marxists and stalinists and maoists?

I love this.

 

[Taylee]

If I were you (and thank GOD I'm not)....

I would be less concerned about what perfect strangers on an internet message board think....and more concerned about how you're going to manage to fool enough Americans into voting for the Failure-In-Chief a second time when, as Obama's poll numbers reflect now, most Americans have awaken to the reality of the Obama scam. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. It ain't gonna happen.

Just sayin....

I just love how lefties are constantly trying to tell those of us on the right what we are and what we believe in. It's a constant in the universe. No matter what forum you visit, they're always there, spewing the same BS and garbage....lol.

So you aren't conservative, you just hate Obama.

If you were conservative, it wouldn't be acceptable for you to replace one liberal with another.

My mistake. You believe in government run healthcare?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're projecting....just like a typical leftie....tsk tsk.

Damn straight I'm saying ANYbody but Obama. After what he's done to the country and is still trying to do TO America and TO Americans....anyone would be better for America than the Liar-In-Chief currently residing in the WH.

I just love how lefties are constantly trying to tell those of us on the right what we are and what we believe in. It's a constant in the universe. No matter what forum you visit, they're always there, spewing the same BS and garbage....lol.

You do just hate him. You yourself posted in this thread saying anyone but obama.you can't even stay consistent with the 5 posts you have...this is just sad.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the electorate became grown ups again and were thoughtful and introspective about what we wanted in our President and argued support for him or her based on that?

When the Obama supporters are reduced to accusing all of us non-Obama supporters of hating him or being racists yadda yadda because we do not support him, it comes across like a childish schoolyard rant.

When the Ron Paul supporters are reduced to accusing all of us non-Ron Paul supporters of being sheep or ideologues or status quo people because we do not support Ron Paul, it comes across as sour grapes and irrational logic.

it is possible to choose who we will vote for based on all considerations of who will do the better job or the more acceptable job or who has the best chance of getting the economy moving again, etc. without hating or despising anybody else.

 

[dblack]

When the Ron Paul supporters are reduced to accusing all of us non-Ron Paul supporters of being sheep or ideologues or status quo people because we do not support Ron Paul, it comes across as sour grapes and irrational logic.

But that's not what's going on. I'm certainly not accusing all non-Ron Paul supporters of anything. You've been clear that you actually think Romney is a good candidate. That seems obviously wrong to me, but if that's your opinion I respect your choice to vote for him.

The 'sheep', the 'status quo' people, are those who recognize that Romney will be a net bad for the country, but will vote for him anyway. Doing that is dishonest and it corrupts the election process. Whether it's out of fear or complacency, they ensure us a continuous line of shitty leaders, leaders who will never change their ways, content in the knowledge that the sheep will support them time after time.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Ron Paul supporters are reduced to accusing all of us non-Ron Paul supporters of being sheep or ideologues or status quo people because we do not support Ron Paul, it comes across as sour grapes and irrational logic.

But that's not what's going on. I'm certainly not accusing all non-Ron Paul supporters of anything. You've been clear that you actually think Romney is a good candidate. That seems obviously wrong to me, but if that's your opinion I respect your choice to vote for him.

The 'sheep', the 'status quo' people, are those who recognize that Romney will be a net bad for the country, but will vote for him anyway. Doing that is dishonest and it corrupts the election process. Whether it's out of fear or complacency, they ensure us a continuous line of shitty leaders, leaders who will never change their ways, content in the knowledge that the sheep will support them time after time.

I don't know any sheep like that. And I have not at any time said that Romney is a "good candidate." In fact I've been pretty clear that he was not my choice for the nominee among those running or those who should have been running. But the fact that he was not on my list of preferred candidates in no way makes him either evil or incompetent. There are many many reasons to believe he is qualified to be President, much more so than Barack Obama was in 2008, and to emphasize his strengths now.

If I honestly thought Romney was no different than Obama, then you would be right. It would be futile to vote or to vote purely based on ideological loyalty to a political party.

I do not, however, think Romney will be at all the same as Obama, and I don't know a single other anti-Obama person who will vote for Romney who thinks Romney will be at all the same as Obama. And I think it is dishonest of Ron Paul supporters to even suggest that. Of course it is things like that which also hurts Ron Paul's image.

 

[dblack]

do not, however, think Romney will be at all the same as Obama, and I don't know a single other anti-Obama person who will vote for Romney who thinks Romney will be at all the same as Obama.

I guess it comes down to perspective. From our view, there is no difference worth bothering with. And I've talked to quite a few people who actually do agree with that - but will vote along party lines for the sake of bolstering Republican power.

Of course it is things like that which also hurts Ron Paul's image.

Yeah... pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes tends to make people unpopular. They're clearly just nutjobs.

 

[Claudette]

When the Ron Paul supporters are reduced to accusing all of us non-Ron Paul supporters of being sheep or ideologues or status quo people because we do not support Ron Paul, it comes across as sour grapes and irrational logic.

But that's not what's going on. I'm certainly not accusing all non-Ron Paul supporters of anything. You've been clear that you actually think Romney is a good candidate. That seems obviously wrong to me, but if that's your opinion I respect your choice to vote for him.

The 'sheep', the 'status quo' people, are those who recognize that Romney will be a net bad for the country, but will vote for him anyway. Doing that is dishonest and it corrupts the election process. Whether it's out of fear or complacency, they ensure us a continuous line of shitty leaders, leaders who will never change their ways, content in the knowledge that the sheep will support them time after time.

I don't know any sheep like that. And I have not at any time said that Romney is a "good candidate." In fact I've been pretty clear that he was not my choice for the nominee among those running or those who should have been running. But the fact that he was on my list of preferred candidates in no way makes him either evil or incompetent. There are many many reasons to believe he is qualified to be President, much more so than Barack Obama was in 2008, and to emphasize his strengths now.

If I honestly thought Romney was no different than Obama, then you would be right. It would be futile to vote or to vote purely based on ideological loyalty to a political party.

I do not, however, think Romney will be at all the same as Obama, and I don't know a single other anti-Obama person who will vote for Romney who thinks Romney will be at all the same as Obama. And I think it is dishonest of Ron Paul supporters to even suggest that. Of course it is things like that which also hurts Ron Paul's image.

I agree.

Romney wasn't my first choice either but that doesn't mean I don't think he wouldn't be a good POTUS.

Shit. People voted for Barry because he was gonna pay their mortgage or buy them a car. Real brainiacs there. Hope and Change my ass.

Unlike Barry Romney actually knows economics and business and has a clue on how to get it done.

He'll have my vote in Nov.

 

[Foxfyre]

But that's not what's going on. I'm certainly not accusing all non-Ron Paul supporters of anything. You've been clear that you actually think Romney is a good candidate. That seems obviously wrong to me, but if that's your opinion I respect your choice to vote for him.

The 'sheep', the 'status quo' people, are those who recognize that Romney will be a net bad for the country, but will vote for him anyway. Doing that is dishonest and it corrupts the election process. Whether it's out of fear or complacency, they ensure us a continuous line of shitty leaders, leaders who will never change their ways, content in the knowledge that the sheep will support them time after time.

I don't know any sheep like that. And I have not at any time said that Romney is a "good candidate." In fact I've been pretty clear that he was not my choice for the nominee among those running or those who should have been running. But the fact that he was on my list of preferred candidates in no way makes him either evil or incompetent. There are many many reasons to believe he is qualified to be President, much more so than Barack Obama was in 2008, and to emphasize his strengths now.

If I honestly thought Romney was no different than Obama, then you would be right. It would be futile to vote or to vote purely based on ideological loyalty to a political party.

I do not, however, think Romney will be at all the same as Obama, and I don't know a single other anti-Obama person who will vote for Romney who thinks Romney will be at all the same as Obama. And I think it is dishonest of Ron Paul supporters to even suggest that. Of course it is things like that which also hurts Ron Paul's image.

I agree.

Romney wasn't my first choice either but that doesn't mean I don't think he wouldn't be a good POTUS.

Shit. People voted for Barry because he was gonna pay their mortgage or buy them a car. Real brainiacs there. Hope and Change my ass.

Unlike Barry Romney actually knows economics and business and has a clue on how to get it done.

He'll have my vote in Nov.

And people will vote for Ron Paul because he boldly says he'll bring the troops home from everywhere and end the Fed and slash government spending by more than half and balance the budget immediately when he has a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing any of that any more than Obama was going to pay those people's mortgages or create the utopia that he promised if people would just vote for him.

We reform government by putting public servants in there who will do the long, painful, and tough process of renegotiating all the stuff that needs reform. It won't happen overnight any more than the process that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy happened overnight. And it will have to be reversed carefully and incrementally.

Romney at least understands that. I'm not sure Ron Paul does.

 

[007]

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.

Well said... thank you...

 

[Trajan]

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.

no not really GTH, ex: I voted for perot, I voted for clinton ( in 96 naturally). each cycle is each cycle. I did vote for Paul last time out, but, this time I am boxed in.

If you live long enough, there comes a time to cut cards with the devil...

 

[dblack]

... people will vote for Ron Paul because he boldly says he'll bring the troops home from everywhere and end the Fed and slash government spending by more than half and balance the budget immediately when he has a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing any of that any more than Obama was going to pay those people's mortgages or create the utopia that he promised if people would just vote for him.

We reform government by putting public servants in there who will do the long, painful, and tough process of renegotiating all the stuff that needs reform. It won't happen overnight any more than the process that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy happened overnight. And it will have to be reversed carefully and incrementally.

Romney at least understands that. I'm not sure Ron Paul does.

We'll never achieve change if we continue to support the candidates, and the parties, that don't deliver. As long as they know they can take our votes for granted, they will.

 

[Foxfyre]

... people will vote for Ron Paul because he boldly says he'll bring the troops home from everywhere and end the Fed and slash government spending by more than half and balance the budget immediately when he has a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing any of that any more than Obama was going to pay those people's mortgages or create the utopia that he promised if people would just vote for him.

We reform government by putting public servants in there who will do the long, painful, and tough process of renegotiating all the stuff that needs reform. It won't happen overnight any more than the process that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy happened overnight. And it will have to be reversed carefully and incrementally.

Romney at least understands that. I'm not sure Ron Paul does.

We'll never achieve change if we continue to support the candidates, and the parties, that don't deliver. As long as they know they can take our votes for granted, they will.

Sometimes you settle for the one who does no harm whether or not he can deliver on his promises. Most especially when the choice is him or the one who promises to continue to do the same or more harm than he has already done.

 

[geauxtohell]

Only if you're easily impressed. I'm betting that you are....lol.

Something tells me that cognition (or psychic abilities) is not your forte.....lol.

Cognition.....

Wow. Now are you going to impress us with $.30 words?

Well, I'll never be impressed with insipid doucebags that troll threads.