Chucktshoes

Couth, I ain't got it. The same monotonous refrain of "you are just a democrat and want the commie to win" in every thread detracts from the conversations. So you think I'm childish? Good, maybe you'll stop wasting your time posting the same lame, nonsensical attack in every thread I am involved in. What part of "I think Romney is really a liberal based upon his record" are you failing to grasp? If Romney is too fiscally liberal for me, how can I be a Democrat? If I want to massively cut federal spending and involvement back to its constitutionally enumerated roles, to include ending ALL social service programs, even the ones the Republicans like, how exactly does that make me a Democrat? When you can back up your statements with something resembling a cogent argument based in some realm of logic, then I will take you seriously.

Hey, I do like his idea about the bacon fat.

With you, except that I think that our schools are more than fully funded. The waste and bloat built into the system and protected by political patronage is what is sucking the funds away from the kids.

Be quiet when grown folks are talking. Don't come back until you can actually make a reasoned argument instead of the nonsense you have spouted so far. I have stated clearly before that my answer to this question is 6 of one, half a dozen of another. Their words may differ slightly, but their records are not substantially different. Just as the antiwar lefties who supported O in the last election found out, once the guy gets into office he is not beholden to the platform he ran on. I will give credit where credit is due, when asked straight out, there has been less equivocation and responses a little closer to what I see as the truth. "He may be a liberal bag of ####, but he's our liberal bag of ####. And hey, at least he's not Obama!"

So, do you think the French will let us cross their airspace this time?

I can back this statement 100%. I was all behind the TEA Party, before they went off the rails on the social agenda. Of course, even the Occupy kids had the source of the problem right, they just had the solution wrong.

Reagan had already developed a record of conservative action to back up his conversion prior to running for president. Romney didn't start trying to change his talk until he started looking at a run for the White House. If Romney had a record to back up his talk, I wouldn't be hammering on this point.

In the discussions I have had on here there has been quite a lot of glossing over of Romney's very progressive record as governor of MA. The most common defense given is that "MA is a liberal progressive state and he did the beat he could." This defense begs one question, if Romney was really a conservative, how did he get to be governor of a liberal progressive state in the first place? My guess is that you get there by being a liberal. His record as governor appears to back that up.

I'll say it, this story does speak very well of his personal character. Were it not for his record as governor, this would be a check in the "reasons to vote for" column. It is a shame he has that millstone of an executive record hanging around his neck.

Meh, the Green Party is where old socialist leaning hippies go to die.

Yep, that one. The one I will empty on any government official who attempts to take it. When it comes time for the jackboots to knock on my door I will exercise my right to engage in an unfair gunfight.

The simple, unavoidable truth is that for people dependent on medication for treatment of chronic conditions, a collapse scenario will result in a very high death rate. If things go really bad here in the US, fleeing and becoming a refugee may be the best chance of survival.

My understanding of the law is the same as yours, JAB. BP guns are not "firearms" per federal law.

Once again I am amazed at folks' willingness to set governmental policy or actions based upon their personal religious beliefs.

Very sexy.

No, not at all (of course that didn't stop Obama in 08, lol). However, the challenges are not based upon legitimate reasons. They are based upon the fact that folks like me will vote for Gary Johnson over Romney and the R party looks at him as a spoiler candidate. They fear his ability to capture a sizable portion of the vote away from their very poor excuse for a candidate. To me, Romney comes in 3rd in line behind Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode (Constitution Party). Voting against someone as opposed to voting for someone has left us with choices like McCain and Romney. I won't fall for it anymore. I will vote my conscience from here on out. If left without my number 1 or 2 pick on the ballot, then I would begrudgingly vote for Romney and that is why the R party is trying to get Johnson off the ballot, people like me.

I just don't see it that way. The choice for R or D is a false one in my opinion. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. At this point I will vote my conscience at the ballot box until the Republicrats force me to vote with the cartridge box.

No, your support of eliminating from the ballot candidates who have fulfilled the requirements to be there because someone may choose to vote for them instead of the guy with the R next to his name makes you a party hack.

I love the transition from "I don't believe this is happening" to "they are justified and he should be removed from the ballot". Not because he shouldn't be there, but because people might vote for him instead of Romney. You party hacks are just plain funny.

Hey! I grew up in one of those. Oh, wait, nvm.

Good book as I remember it. Might have to reread it now that you bring it up. I went through a period of time where I read every book he wrote, though I haven't read anything of his in the last 5 or 6 years. I think that where you and I find ourselves at loggerheads in the political discussions is that you may still have faith that the Republic can be reclaimed from the clenches of tyranny. I have none. I have no hope faith left in our current system, only hope in a future after collapse. In fact I would prefer to see it all burn to the ground sooner rather than later in the hopes that something worthwhile may surface for my daughter to raise her children in. I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. Thomas Paine

This is nothing more than naked theft by the government. My other posts have expressed my views on defense of property. Draw what conclusions from that you wish.

This is the point I have been trying to make. During the last campaign much hay was made regarding O's lack of executive experience. Well, Mitt possesses that experience, and yet, a lot of y'all are willing to ignore what he actually did while in office because he has the right letter next to his name. There is no difference between y'all and the Democrats who gloss over O's record during the last 3.5 years regarding his handling of the wars, his failure to close Guantanamo, or the fact that he has claimed the ability to execute or assassinate US citizens without due process. Even GWB didn't go that far. For a supposed "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama sure doesn't give a damn about what it says. Mitt won't either, none of them ever do. They all just want to expand the power they wield.

You should ask Il Duce to show you his new Ed Brown.

Welcome and stuff. As a dude who doesn't have to deal with the fashion issues of dressing that y'all do, I have no advice to give ya. All I will say is that my wife's carry gun is Ruger SR9c.