Everybody tells me how important it is to vote....

[gregintenn]

However, she was not collecting in 1935. Nobody that had any immediate or even shortly to be realized vested interest in supporting passage of the legislation is still alive. Even a 100 year old today did not start collecting until 1973-77.

It's really not valid to criticize folks who have had no choice about paying into the system for taking out of it.

- OS

I stand corrected. I misread your post.

[Guest Smitty]

This guy sums it up pretty well. I hope more people wake up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The guy on that video is Barbra Streisand's illegitimate brother.

[mikegideon]

The guy on that video is Barbra Streisand's illegitimate brother.

That's kinda what I thought.

[JAB]

Even if an independent runs, who will have no chance at all of winning, and you vote for them, it's a vote for Obama.

I refuse to not vote, so I will go to the polls, hold my nose and push the button.

I also refuse not to vote. However, I further refuse to vote for a crappy candidate simply because if I don't the sky will fall and Obama will win. I will vote for whichever candidate I truly believe would be the best for the job. Whether or not several million other people or only ten other people will vote for that candidate matters not to me. I am not playing the odds at the track on which dog can win the race. I am voting for the person I believe to be the best hire for the job of POTUS. I believe that the biggest reason an independent 'can't' win is because too many people are playing the odds and the big two parties have everyone snowed into being too scared to vote for the person they believe to be the best candidate because voters are too worried about the 'other guy' winning. The whole 'an independent can't win' thing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy fueled by the fears implanted in people's minds but the Repocrat-Dempublican party, which is exactly what they want.

At the risk of ranging into the realm of the melodramatic, think of how much would be different if George Washington and his contemporaries had looked around and said, "England has too many soldiers, too much money and too many resources. Even though remaining subjects of the crown is not really our best option we will do so because there is no way that a few, loosely united colonies can win a war against them."

Edited April 16, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"simply because if I don't the sky will fall and Obama will win."

And that's not enough?

[mikegideon]

"simply because if I don't the sky will fall and Obama will win."

And that's not enough?

Obama doesn't have to beat the Republicans when they're more than willing to beat themselves. As of today, Obama has a 9 point lead in the polls, mostly because of women. I wish they would yank their heads out of their asses. Vaginas got nothing to do with the real problems.

[JAB]

Perhaps most importantly, his choices for the Supremes will absolutely not change us into a further Amerika over the next 50 years as would Obama's.

- OS

Really? Can you honestly be certain that a liberal RINO will not nominate other liberal RINOs to the Supreme Court? A majority of liberals on the Supreme Court is a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court regardless of whether those liberals are Dems or RINOS.

In other words, the one thing that folks are citing as the 'biggest difference' between a Romney presidency and a second Obama term might end up not making any real, practical difference, at all. That is what I find scary about the whole thing.

Edited April 16, 2012 by JAB

[JAB]

"simply because if I don't the sky will fall and Obama will win."

And that's not enough?

Not when you (as in I) believe the argument to be just as overblown and ridiculous as it sounds. Not that another four years of Obama would be good for the country - just that four years of Romney wouldn't be good, either - and the sky is likely to stay firmly in place no matter who wins. Hell, we survived eight years of a spoiled little rich fraternity brat turned cowboy running ruining the country so I figure somehow we will survive four more years of the community organizer in chief if it comes down to that - just as we would likely survive four years of a liberal, New England RINO whose last name might as well be Kennedy as POTUS.

Obama doesn't have to beat the Republicans when they're more than willing to beat themselves.

You are probably right. As for myself, I am not a Dempublican nor a Repocrat. When it comes right down to it and the end effect on the 'little guy', I really see very little difference between the two parties (which move closer and closer to being one big, bloated party every year) and have grown to detest them both. One side wants to rob the regular joe to give money to the welfare class. The other side wants to rob the regular joe so that the very wealthy can remain very wealthy. One side wants to pass laws telling us what things in society we must accept while the other side wants to pass laws to regulate our morality. One side wants to legislate what we think and the other side wants to regulate our bodies. Either way, regular folks (like me) are screwed. At the very least I will not give my consent - however insignificant - to either of them. I will vote my conscience, not play the odds.

Edited April 17, 2012 by JAB

[mikegideon]

You are probably right. As for myself, I am not a Dempublican nor a Repocrat. When it comes right down to it and the end effect on the 'little guy', I really see very little difference between the two parties (which move closer and closer to being one big, bloated party every year) and have grown to detest them both. One side wants to rob the regular joe to give money to the welfare class. The other side wants to rob the regular joe so that the very wealthy can remain very wealthy. Either way, I'm screwed. At the very least I will not give my consent - however insignificant - to either of them. I will vote my conscience, not play the odds.

I'll agree with you. Then I'll add... One wants to disarm us, and one don't. Pretty simple choice to me.

[JAB]

I'll agree with you. Then I'll add... One wants to disarm us, and one don't. Pretty simple choice to me.

Do you really trust that a liberal New England politician who likely has a poster of Ted Kennedy on the wall in his basement wouldn't like to take away our firearms rights? Heck, even Lord High God Almighty Reagan didn't really support gun rights. In fact, he was governor of California when that state's history of strict anti-gun legislation got rolling - with his full support. He also spoke out in support of the Brady campaign. If you can't trust Reagan to really be in favor of gun rights do you really think we could trust Romney? I don't.

If you really want to see how much 'support' the Republican party gives to firearms rights beyond paying lip service just take a look at the legislature and the governor of our state. The guy who likes to trumpet his part in bringing legalized, private carry (with the requirement of fees and a permit, of course) to the state is currently objecting to legislation to allow employees to be armed on their way to and from work. The 'Republican' Speaker of the House, Harwell, is coming across - to me - as being about as anti-gun as they come. Finally, the current 'Republican' governor was a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns until he realized it could cost him the governorship. My fear is that the only difference between Obama's stance on firearm's rights and Romney's stance on firearms rights is that Obama has been clear about his opposition. Romney strikes me as a trojan horse.

Edited April 16, 2012 by JAB

[Garufa]

No politician supports gun rights in the way many would like. It is not in their best interests.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Garufa

[mikegideon]

I'll go with what Romney said in his speech to the NRA until he violates it. You certainly won't get that out of Obama. Romney is going to be accountable to the Republican party.

[kieefer]

Obama doesn't have to beat the Republicans when they're more than willing to beat themselves. As of today, Obama has a 9 point lead in the polls, mostly because of women. I wish they would yank their heads out of their asses. Vaginas got nothing to do with the real problems.

Speaking of asses, polls are like asses, everyone has one. I guess you know that we can't put much faith in polls. Find the poll that favors your wanted overcome and stick with that one. http://www.realclear....com/?state=nwa

This will be the most hateful, divisive election season that we will most likely ever see. Polls will no doubt be a part of the division but I think the quite majority will win in the end.

It also doesn't matter what the Republicans say, their words will be twisted and we'll have another war on something regardless.

poll this;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-mitt-romney-a-tight-statistical-battle-gallup-article-1.1062583

.

Edited April 17, 2012 by kieefer

[mikegideon]

I'm hoping you're right. We're not close enough to the election for any polls to matter anyway. Just wish folks would get their heads in the game.

[kieefer]

The libs are way ahead already.

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/16/left-celebrates-ann-romneys-birthday-with-death-wish-and-vile-slurs/

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, that poll that claims it is the women that has him ahead is just propaganda. Their war on women

campaign is a joke. Ann Romney might be what gets him over the top, with those kinds of strategies.

I think Romney can pull this out.

[mikegideon]

Yeh, that poll that claims it is the women that has him ahead is just propaganda. Their war on women

campaign is a joke. Ann Romney might be what gets him over the top, with those kinds of strategies.

I think Romney can pull this out.

It's not all BS. A lot of girls are pissed. That's MY poll, and I trust it more. Mitt's folks will hopefully deal with it. Like I said, too far from the election to kill him.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The old cliche that America has or is becoming dumbed down was pretty much proven to me in the 2008 election win by Obama, but i still reserved doubt that the America people can stay stupid for longer than four years. The 2010 elections provided hope for me, thinking that America just went to sleep in 2008, but if Obama is re- elected in November after overwhelming evidence that he and his Marxist cronies hate America, and want to destroy the America that we've always known, then I will be totally convinced that America has become dumbed down without any hope of recovery from this malady.

I still believe that Romney, with the American people waking up from their stupor can still defeat Obama in November, but it is going to take everyone at this very moment to stop all the negative talk of Romney, and get unified behind the most important goal of kicking this commie out of the WH. Romney was not my first choice as the R nominee, but I'm ready to support him fully in this most important election since WW2. Only by everyone getting unified behind Romney can we defeat Obama this November.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What are they pissed about? You're not talking about that Ann Romney stuff? i heard one or two callers on

Hannity, in the car, but they sounded like lib plants sent to call and spread stupid stuff. Who really cares if Ann

is a stay at home mom? The narrative was started by that phony war on women strategy. If anyone bought into

it, they need their head examined.

[kieefer]

There's a lot more common sense people paying attention these days I think. So when the hate speech from the left occurs, most down to earth folks are going to blow it off, they know what's happening. Those that don't hear it, notice it through the economy.

And now for a feel good moment, the Buffet Rule was voted down tonight.

+1 for the "right"side.

[Oh Shoot]

Really? Can you honestly be certain that a liberal RINO will not nominate other liberal RINOs to the Supreme Court? ....

If Sotomayor and Kagan haven't fazed you I don't have any more arguments. Comrade.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I tried, too, Mac. , or should we start using comrade from now on?

Papers, please! Your papers, PLEASE!

[mikegideon]

What are they pissed about? You're not talking about that Ann Romney stuff? i heard one or two callers on

Hannity, in the car, but they sounded like lib plants sent to call and spread stupid stuff. Who really cares if Ann

is a stay at home mom? The narrative was started by that phony war on women strategy. If anyone bought into

it, they need their head examined.

Not the Ann Romney stuff. That was fabricated. They're pissed about a bunch of old white men deciding what they're going to do with their bodies. I don't blame them. When it shows significant numbers in the polls, it's a big deal. Everybody gets the believe what they want, but I know it's an issue.

[mikegideon]

The old cliche that America has or is becoming dumbed down was pretty much proven to me in the 2008 election win by Obama, but i still reserved doubt that the America people can stay stupid for longer than four years. The 2010 elections provided hope for me, thinking that America just went to sleep in 2008, but if Obama is re- elected in November after overwhelming evidence that he and his Marxist cronies hate America, and want to destroy the America that we've always known, then I will be totally convinced that America has become dumbed down without any hope of recovery from this malady.

I still believe that Romney, with the American people waking up from their stupor can still defeat Obama in November, but it is going to take everyone at this very moment to stop all the negative talk of Romney, and get unified behind the most important goal of kicking this commie out of the WH. Romney was not my first choice as the R nominee, but I'm ready to support him fully in this most important election since WW2. Only by everyone getting unified behind Romney can we defeat Obama this November.

I think you're spot on.