TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JV ... q=medium#t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sad truth is we should be able to run ANYONE against him and win. The uninformed (polite word for moron...) electorite is voting for freebees and phones...

Cjwglock19 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JV ... q=medium#t

I believe this is the same video. viewtopic.php?f=94&t=58335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The title of this thread should have been "Why we can't reelect Obama or elect Mitt Romney". The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy and I'm not even confident in that. As far as freedom and liberty he's just another big government statist only with an R next to his name instead of the guy with the L in there right now. Yeah, yeah you can flame me, call me names, whatever I'm used to it by now but just don't claim to be some flag waving lover of the Constitution while supporting the guy who is just as bad as Obama when it comes to freedom and individual liberty. Sorry but I cannot stand either of them.

RCP wrote:The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy and I'm not even confident in that.

Yup, that pesky little "economy thing", definitely not one of the important issues anyways.

"don't claim to be some flag waving lover of the Constitution while supporting the guy who is just as bad as Obama when it comes to freedom and individual liberty. Sorry but I cannot stand either of them."

I guess you wold be writting in "Ron Paul"?

If we get the same status quo for another 4 yrs, deadlocked congress and same President. I guess to things I can expect:
1) Riots like in Greece
2) Dollar would lose 30% of it is value.
3) Interest rate is at 5%.

RCP wrote: The title of this thread should have been "Why we can't reelect Obama or elect Mitt Romney". The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy and I'm not even confident in that. As far as freedom and liberty he's just another big government statist only with an R next to his name instead of the guy with the L in there right now. Yeah, yeah you can flame me, call me names, whatever I'm used to it by now but just don't claim to be some flag waving lover of the Constitution while supporting the guy who is just as bad as Obama when it comes to freedom and individual liberty. Sorry but I cannot stand either of them.

We are not going to fix this in one election. Mitt Romney is the only person who has a snowballs chance of beating Obama in a month or so. If I have to choose between driving toward a canyon at 100 mph or 25 mph I am going to choose 25, because it gives us more time to turn the car around. Is mittens perfect, nope, only one man has ever been that. Is he a sight better than Obama, certainly. If Obama is like arsenic to our country (and our economy), Mitt is like 800mg of ibuprofen, not good for the long term use but might keep us from some pain that arsenic would bring.

Here's another reason why we can't re-elect Obama. He's willing to allow violation of this law and (have us) pay fines/costs for the contractors then he's not above any malfeasance that might have more direct affect on us and our precious rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... reelection" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RCP wrote:. . .The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy . . .

You've got to be kidding me.

Do the names "Sonia Sotormayor" and "Elana Kagan" ring any bells? Both are notoriously anti-gun, not to mention every other way they are hard left.

DC v Heller was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia. He will likely retire in the next term. Do you want more Obama judges like the last two to take Scalia's seat? We'll be living with that change in the court balance for 20 years.

Even if I conceded Romney was no different than Obama on everything else (which I do not believe), Romney is the winning choice just on the Supreme Court issue and gun rights.

Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting because of a refusal to vote for anybody who is not ideologically "pure" is a certain way to turn this country over the Obama and his minions for four more years and, maybe, forever if he pulls a Hugo Chavez, which he might well do if he can.

Jumping Frog wrote:

RCP wrote:. . .The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy . . .

You've got to be kidding me.

Do the names "Sonia Sotormayor" and "Elana Kagan" ring any bells? Both are notoriously anti-gun, not to mention every other way they are hard left.

DC v Heller was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia. He will likely retire in the next term. Do you want more Obama judges like the last two to take Scalia's seat? We'll be living with that change in the court balance for 20 years.

Even if I conceded Romney was no different than Obama on everything else (which I do not believe), Romney is the winning choice just on the Supreme Court issue and gun rights.

This...

EconDoc wrote:Voting for a third-party candidate or not voting because of a refusal to vote for anybody who is not ideologically "pure" is a certain way to turn this country over the Obama and his minions for four more years and, maybe, forever if he pulls a Hugo Chavez, which he might well do if he can.

...and this.

Oh, and.....

mamabearCali wrote:

RCP wrote: The title of this thread should have been "Why we can't reelect Obama or elect Mitt Romney". The ONLY thing Mitt Romney might (and I stress might) be better with is issues on the economy and I'm not even confident in that. As far as freedom and liberty he's just another big government statist only with an R next to his name instead of the guy with the L in there right now. Yeah, yeah you can flame me, call me names, whatever I'm used to it by now but just don't claim to be some flag waving lover of the Constitution while supporting the guy who is just as bad as Obama when it comes to freedom and individual liberty. Sorry but I cannot stand either of them.

We are not going to fix this in one election. Mitt Romney is the only person who has a snowballs chance of beating Obama in a month or so. If I have to choose between driving toward a canyon at 100 mph or 25 mph I am going to choose 25, because it gives us more time to turn the car around. Is mittens perfect, nope, only one man has ever been that. Is he a sight better than Obama, certainly. If Obama is like arsenic to our country (and our economy), Mitt is like 800mg of ibuprofen, not good for the long term use but might keep us from some pain that arsenic would bring.

....this.

But without a doubt, SCOTUS is a HUGE issue. Hard core third party voters—on either side—never look past their party to the larger concerns of the practical application of political power. No Libertarian candidate is EVER going to have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. That lot will only ever fall to either a democrat or a republican. That's just the fact of it. But it sure does look like the unrepentant Libertarian voters would rather see the republican candidate sunk than to get SCOTUS appointments that might be more friendly to their issues.

You can't reason with folks like that, so I don't try. And frankly, I view them to be just as damaging to the American political process as hard core leftists. And speaking of hard core leftists, we got Obamacare thanks to Obama/Pelosi/Reid kowtowing to their hardcore leftist base. And even Romney, with his "Romneycare" baggage, says that what might be right for a state isn't necessarily right for the country.

If Obama beats Romney because hardcore libertarians desert political reality and vote third party, here is what they are OK with:

• NO repeal of Obamacare.
  • Fines for the uninsured, including those who cannot afford insurance.
  • The creation and enforcement of "exchanges" in which the fines collected from those who cannot afford insurance are used to pay for insurance for those who are a net drain on society.
  • Death panels.
  • Fewer doctors in practice.
  • Waiting lists for healthcare.
  • The total destruction of Medicare.
  • Etc., etc., use Canada or (formerly) Great Britain as an example
• Higher progressive income tax. Say "bye bye" to any fair-tax/flat-tax/VAT-tax schemes.
• Continued high unemployment (along with continued high Food Stamp rolls, welfare rolls, unemployment insurance rolls, etc., etc.).
• Continued uncertainty in hiring brought on by the above higher government expenses/national debt/taxes.
• Continued increase in the national debt.
• Two more ARCH liberal communists on the SCOTUS.
• Energy:
  • Continued dependence on foreign oil imports.
  • Higher gas prices.
  • Higher heating oil prices.
  • Lower power generation capacity
  • Lower refinery capacity
  • Less nuclear power.
  • Etc., etc., etc.
• An all out assault on guns
  • A new AWB
  • Ammunition controls
  • Additional taxes on gun/ammo purchases.
  • Attacks on reciprocity.
• Further attacks on religious conscience, free speech, and other First Amendment issues.

The list is much longer than that. Those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head. ANYBODY—regardless of their party affilation (which means democrats too)—who votes for anyone besides Mitt Romney in this election is, in effect, voting that they are OK with all of these things......because that will be the net effect of their vote.

That's just plain political reality. Some may not like it,, but them are the facts. But some people want to cover their ears, squinch up their eyes, and shout "I'M NOT LISTENING!!!" Well, that's fine. Don't listen. But don't you dare gripe either if Obama wins and all these things came to fruition, because that will be what YOU helped to make happen.

EconDoc wrote: a certain way to turn this country over the Obama and his minions for four more years and, maybe, forever if he pulls a Hugo Chavez, which he might well do if he can.

It looks like the Republican party may have already done that by refusing to nominate a conservative instead of the inspiration for Obamacare. If a second Obama term comes to pass, the Republican leadership better not gripe because they helped it happen.

recaffeination wrote:

EconDoc wrote: a certain way to turn this country over the Obama and his minions for four more years and, maybe, forever if he pulls a Hugo Chavez, which he might well do if he can.

It looks like the Republican party may have already done that by refusing to nominate a conservative instead of the inspiration for Obamacare. If a second Obama term comes to pass, the Republican leadership better not gripe because they helped it happen.

Okay, we got it...Ron Paul didn't get the nomination, so now the important thing is to punish the Republican Party by letting the man occupying the White House stay where he is...so, I'll say it now: If the Comunity-Organizer-in-Chief holds his seat, well don't come tell us about the trouble that WILL ensue...we told you guys what would happen. Just like I always tell people now, "Don't blame me, I voted McCain".

Heartland Patriot wrote:If the Comunity-Organizer-in-Chief holds his seat, well don't come tell us about the trouble that WILL ensue...we told you guys what would happen.

That sounds like a double edged sword. Weren't anti-Romney people saying almost the same thing before he was nominated?