Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Mitt Romney

Old news man. Everybody is keenly aware of this. That's why we want Obama and his ilk gone so bad. Preaching to the choir.

Not Coolidge?

Not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not naive enough to believe that Romney is the 2nd coming of Reagan. I'm also not stupid enough to say that he's the same as Obama. Their ideologies are too far apart from each other.

Crap! You may have got me there. I meant to add "in our lifetimes". Good catch.

Oh absolutely! He's even continued to move more to the right since his last attempt at a Presidential run.

With the life lessons of Obama and Europe right in his face, it's easy to see why.

+1!!

BOWSINGER, are you going to respond?

Another example is how the current administration has been trying to use international treaty to do the same.

Thus, I will support Obama. Is what you really said.

No, that's not what he means. I am not voting for Romney either, because regardless of protestations by those who have decided that he's OK, I find him to be someone willing to say anything and "evolve" his positions in order to suit the audience and the occasion. In other words, a lair. I'm done voting for the lesser of two evils. All of the supposed items listed by others are promises from someone who has shown himself to be a serial liar, and who governed in the exact opposite way than he says he will now.

Essentially, he is saying trust me. Sorry, I don't, because actions speak louder than words, especially in politics.

Supporting Obama would mean giving money or voting for him, which neither I nor Raisuli are going to do. Voting for someone who reflects our values, or choosing not to vote for President is not supporting someone, it's withholding support from a corrupt system that gives false choices.

There is no difference between the two, only in their rhetoric. Their governing records are indistinguishable.

Here are 2 that sound like Eeyore; snivel, bitch, whine, woe is me. But when it comes to answers, yours are just what exactly?

Ron Paul is a non-entity, that leaves you with Obama and Romney as candidates. You will have to vote for one, or not at all. Your answer is as worthless as used chewing gum, maybe even less...

I'd go with less. Used chewing gum can be quite useful.


Travis

I too would like to live in a parallel universe where the real choices are between evil and perfection.







Two words: Sotomayor and Kagan

Mike, I know that you cannot be persuaded one way or another, it's one of the reasons I think you have sound integrity.

I wish I could make you see that action OR inaction is only going to do one of two things. There is no other option.

At the end of a First Term Presidential Term, we have the option to vote FOR or AGAINST the incumbent. Votes do not go either way. Our vote, or lack of vote is either going to benefit the incumbent or harm the incumbent.

If one votes for the incumbent, they are directly supporting him. If they vote against the incumbent, then they are directly harming him. If they do not vote, it benefits the incumbent in that it does not assist the opponent. This is indirectly supporting the incumbent.

If I remember correctly, you live in a very red state, so your single solitary vote will not carry much weight if it is withheld. In that case I respect your principles and conviction to choose to stay home. I would encourage you to continue to shout out our Conservative principles, but would caution against encouraging or urging other to stay home as you have chosen to do. I know you have not done this, so this is more for the benefit of other readers here. The reason your state is Red, is because it has a LOT of people of similar principles. If they decided to do as you have chosen, then all it does is indirectly benefit the incumbent.

So, in swing states and blue states, the fact is, if you do not vote against Obama by pulling the lever next to Romney's name, you are in fact supporting for Obama. This is fact on the point that in those states your vote is needed to cancel out an opposing vote at the very least.

The only way to harm the incumbent is to vote for the opponent. A non-vote benefits the incumbent.

HAJ,

I understand the argument about "action, inaction", but in this case, specifically Obama v. Romney, other than the latter changing his rhetoric to suit his needs at the time, there has been no material difference in their actual governance.

Everything that he-Romney-has put forward are empty promises, especially when judged against past action-and not just distant past, but recent past-and hard numbers, especially IRT the economy. That's why I believe that there would be no material difference in the administrations of the two. They both have the same paymasters, and it isn't the citizenry of the USA. They will serve the interests of those that place them in power, and who provide the funds to remain there.

For those who wish to continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils", that's their choice. I'm done with that, and I believe that they will be sorely disappointed. If some want to equate that with supporting Obama, that too is their opinion, to which they are entitled.

I wish you nothing but the best Mike.

Back at ya.

Yes true, I specially said �legislation� in response to Raisuli quote�
�Vote for Oromney and say adios to the Second Amendment�

What I said was true about gun control legislation.

As far as Presidential Executive Orders, they can only be used to implement authority that has been delegated to the President by Congress (via law) or that was delegated to him by the Constitution.
That is what George Bush (Senior) did in response to the 1987 McClure-Volkmer Act which was a limited revision of the 1968 US Gun Control Act and after six kids were shot down by a Chinese-made assault weapon a Stockton, California school.

Banning �assault weapons� is a stupid idea, but buying them from China might not be such a good idea�the whole thing died 10 years later anyway when Congress refused to renew that stupid idea.

Looking at the catalog pages in the latest Gun Digest and all the imports, I fail to see much of a treat to the 2nd Amendment.

To say that Romney could do away with the 2nd is plain hogwash.

And speaking of �hogwash� when are YOU going to respond to my disagreements with you (and DD) about the history of political violence back in the good old days over on the �REAL Ron Paul update� thread.

Or am I the only one who needs to do that�