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

[Guest ThePunisher]

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

Papers, please! Your papers, PLEASE!

I don't think that is too far fetched if the little commie is re-elected.

[Guest HvyMtl]

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.

And sadly, the GOP is too far focused on them, and controling them, than on actually running the government. Leave the vaginas alone, and focus on running the country, GOP.

Edited April 17, 2012 by HvyMtl

[JAB]

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

- OS

Did I say that Obama would make good nominations to the Supreme Court? Did I say he had done so in the past? C'mon, OhShoot, you know full well that I did not. What I did say is that I don't see any reason to believe that Romney wouldn't nominate liberal Rinos who would be every bit as bad as Sotomayor and Kagan. That was my point. In other words, if Obama Vanilla really is the nation's only hope then the situation is already pretty much hopeless.

Edited April 17, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ginsberg, Kennedy, maybe another. Does anyone really think Romney could do worse than Obama

in replacing Ginsberg? He will nominate who his close staff tell him to. Romney has a chance to gain

a stronger conservative majority, well, everywhere, including the SCOTUS. It's foolish to think he would

be like Obama.

Of course if you're stuck on something, you're stuck on it.

[wjh2657]

_{From the posts around the forums It seems like you have to be either an Obama loving muslim commie sheeple and believe that socialism is good or you have to be a a Romney loving right wing Nazi raciist who believes that Romney is the second coming of Christ . I am neither one so I guesss I might as well stay home on the first Tuesday in November. i don't have an invite to the party.}

Edited April 17, 2012 by wjh2657

[Guest ThePunisher]

Sometimes it is good for some people to sit out elections.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

_{From the posts around the forums It seems like you have to be either an Obama loving muslim commie sheeple and believe that socialism is good or you have to be a a Romney loving right wing Nazi raciist who believes that Romney is the second coming of Christ . I am neither one so I guesss I might as well stay home on the first Tuesday in November. i don't have an invite to the party.}

If that's your take from these forums, maybe you should, because no one around here thinks Romney is

the second coming of Christ.

[Oh Shoot]

... What I did say is that I don't see any reason to believe that Romney wouldn't nominate liberal Rinos who would be every bit as bad as Sotomayor and Kagan. ...

Sorry, but by believing that Romney would appoint anyone even in the ballpark of either of those two, you'll lost all credence with me as someone who has any basis in political reality at all.

I seriously suggest you just stay with your convictions, and not waste time voting for a write in/straggler, or even carping in political forums about your version of the hopeless status quo of US elections, since you'll make zero difference doing either.

It may well be that the US is on an inexorable course to crash and burn, regardless of who's at the helm. But that's only a bet one way or the other. What's clear is that there really is a choice of direction in this election. You pays yer money and you takes yer chances, but you can't possibly win if you don't play at all.

- OS

Edited April 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[Oh Shoot]

If that's your take from these forums, maybe you should, because no one around here thinks Romney is

the second coming of Christ.

No, but the first part of his statement is pretty close.

- OS

[Guest TankerHC]

A non-vote = a vote for the incumbent, whoever that may be. Your non-vote may put two more radical socialists on the Supreme Court which will do generations worth of damage. Think about that. There's a lot more at stake here than just the person who sits at the helm in the Oval Office. The repercussions for not voting for anyone can be just as damaging as casting a vote directly for Obama.

Actually it equals two votes for Obama, one vote from the Lib who will vote for him, and the one vote lost against him.

[JAB]

...and not waste time voting for a write in/straggler, or even carping in political forums about your version of the hopeless status quo of US elections, since you'll make zero difference doing either.

- OS

Well, thanks for telling me that my point of view is worthless while yours is unimpeachable. You know, until that comment I disagreed with you but respected you. Respectful disagreement is one thing but, frankly, that is the type of, "I am right and you are wrong so just shut up," comment I would expect out of a liberal anti-gunner. Due to that comment, I have now lost any respect I previously had for you. Enjoy voting for the (supposedly) lesser of two evils. Despite your wishes, I will vote - and I will vote however I please.

Edited April 18, 2012 by JAB

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I enjoy carping, except you have to be careful of all the bones.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, thanks for telling me that my point of view is worthless while yours is unimpeachable. ....

I didn't rate your opinion as "worthless" -- only impotent for making any difference in the coming election.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You either have a core belief for liberty and freedom, or you wish for this country to "change" into something

different. This election , there is a blurred, but distinguishable, difference between the two candidates running.

One is a communist. Take that however you wish, but when you say that may be harsh, consider what he's

done and look deeply into his motives for doing so. Obama has publicly said he has very little respect for the

Constitution, and his actions have followed suit. He has very low regard for the Supreme Court and has tried

to bully them in a State of the Union address. He has spent taxpayer money without accountability to pay his

supporters(unions) and bailout industries. Obamacare. want me to go on?

Romney takes credit for being governor of Massachusetts and approving a state run health care system. His

record may be of a liberal Republican, but that is a stretch from being a communist. He is a successful wealthy

business man. He has management experience as a governor and in the private sector. That is enough to

qualify him for the office.

Obama was a "community organizer" for SEIU and a one term US Senator(part completed). He voted "present"

in the Illinois State legislature, mostly. The man is an empty suit and a communist.

JAB. Tell me there is no difference between the two, but back it up with substance, if you don't mind. Vote however

you wish, but if it isn't an inconvenience, try to put some thought into it, please.

You did say you didn't think Romney would do any better than Obama with SCOTUS picks. Based on what?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester, those carp are best smoked and on a plate to pick through, aren't they? Only time I liked carp!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And that phrase "lesser of two evils" is such an over-used phrase. Someone please show me Romney's "evil",

to begin with. You can dislike someone all day long, but that doesn't make him evil.

Edited April 18, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Oh Shoot]

I enjoy carping, except you have to be careful of all the bones.

Lester, those carp are best smoked and on a plate to pick through, aren't they? Only time I liked carp!

<OffTopicApology>

Carp patties is the way to go. Seriously, I've eaten my weight in them (long story):

Take preferably 3 pounders and under (bones in fillets are smaller).

Fillet and skin, make sure to cut out bellies, where any muddy taste collects.

Run fillets through meat grinder a time or three. Mix with an egg, minced onion, bell pepper, seasoning, whatever you like. Make patties, dust with flour or corn meal, fry as you would salmon patties.

Great stuff.

</OffTopicApology>

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do you have the grill started, yet? I'll be up there in a little bit. Sounds tasty!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks OS. Now that there would be carping in style!

And that phrase "lesser of two evils" is such an over-used phrase. Someone please show me Romney's "evil",

to begin with. You can dislike someone all day long, but that doesn't make him evil.

Well, a quick'n'dirty approximation-- This is only about a one pound carp--

* Good = Balanced Budget

* Lesser Evil = $1.19 Trillion deficit in four years

* Greater Evil = $1.41 Trillion deficit in one year

If Rommie runs deficits then it will be evil (and not just Rommie because other factors affect it). I will eat a hat if Rommie balances a budget in 4 years, or even 8 years. But if Rommie runs less deficits than Obama then he might arguably prove himself the lesser evil.

Sure Rommie says he will reduce the deficit. Obama said he was gonna halve the deficit in four years. GWB promised to stop meddling overseas and expand that surplus he inherited. The proof will be in the pudding. Maybe Rommie will reduce the deficit, and maybe not. I would hope so, but they always say that. The check is in the mail. Sure I'll respect you in the morning. It wasn't me with that blond I swear. It was somebody who looked just like me driving the same model of car.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You have to have a budget to begin with. How long has that been? Three years, now? That's evil, Lester.

Rome wasn't built in a day, either. It may take drastic action in two years to get anything done, because of

the House elections. Any way he goes, he has two years to stop the madness. I don't see the evil like you

do.

Obama has already doomed this country. Anything Romney and Congress can do may only just slow

it down.

Edited April 19, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest ThePunisher]

The R's need to keep pounding the mantra "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago". The polls are answering with a resounding no, and I can only imagine what this country will be like if Obama gets 4 more years.

[JAB]

You did say you didn't think Romney would do any better than Obama with SCOTUS picks. Based on what?

You guys keep misreading/misquoting what I have posted.

No, I did not say that I think Romney wouldn't do any better with SCOTUS. What I said is that I have seen no evidence that he WOULD. There is a difference.

See, I believe you guys are simply assuming that Romney will be better than Obama. Truthfully, I think some are simply assuming that because he is a Republican he would be better. Maybe he would - I don't know. However, I have seen no evidence - based on his track record - which leads me to believe that he would. Remember, this is a track record of signing off on state gun bans, apparently supporting anti-gun legislation and backing/pushing through state run healthcare.

In 2004, (amid a certain amount of fanfare, it seems) he signed into law a permanent ban on so-called 'assault weapons' in Massachusetts. In support of that law, he has been quoted as saying, "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Also, if what I can find is correct, the ban including some handguns and some semi-auto firearms. There is every indication that he was more than happy to sign the legislation. That, alone, is enough to qualify him as 'evil' in my book. Hmmm...perhaps I am not the one who is uniformed, after all. Or maybe I'm just not wearing the 'he must be great because he is a Republican and our only alternative to Obama' blinders.

So, I ask again - based on his track record and not based on BS from his current campaign speeches - what evidence is there to support a claim that Romney's choices for SCOTUS would be any better - at least on firearms related issues - than Obama's? Honestly, it seems to me that Romney, whose previous actions show support for gun control, would have every reason to nominate anti-gun Justices. That way he wouldn't have to try and buck his Republican masters by supporting new gun control measures. In that way, rather than trying to get more anti-gun legislation passed or being seen to support such legislation, he could simply count on the Justices he puts into place to water down, weaken and gut existing gun rights protections from the bench - a tactic I believe he would share with Obama when it comes to choosing SCOTUS nominees. Even if I am wrong in thinking he would purposefully choose anti-gun nominees his track record certainly indicates that a pro-gun stance would not be an important factor for Romney in making his nominations for SCOTUS.

Edited April 19, 2012 by JAB

[Mike.357]

The only advantage to romney picking the scotus would be hopefully the advisors he is listening to. They could not possibly be more liberal than

Odumbos advisors.

[JAB]

The only advantage to romney picking the scotus would be hopefully the advisors he is listening to. They could not possibly be more liberal than

Odumbos advisors.

Okay, I can maybe see that. If he listens to the advisers. Hopefully. Still a pretty thin hope, though.

[mikegideon]

Romney isn't stupid enough to make a hard move against his base. JAB, you're missing the one characteristic that he's demonstrated time and again. If you're the governor of the Peoples Republic of Mass., you better show some gun hating traits. If you're a Republican President, you better NOT.

Mitt flops with the flow. He's gonna be a lonely boy if he craps on gun owners, even though it probably helped his popularity when he was the gov of a commie state.