Nope. My vote will actually count for something. Unlike the one you'll be casting for the status quo. We don't have to choose between a douche and a turd. We can vote, with a clear conscience, for a candidate with a proven track record of fiscal responsibility and a plan. You? Not so much. Have fun with your vote, tho.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Romney chooses Ryan
- Thread starter Wreaver
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yep, Ron Paul got a lot of support this time. Of course, the media didn't give "crazy Uncle Ron" any time during the debates (Johnson only got invited to ONE DEBATE! But he killed 'em with the limited time he had).
Want to See Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Debate? Here's Why You Won't - TheStreet
Is it any wonder so few people vote when the two choices we get don't really represent the vast majority of the American people, who really just want to be able to live their lives without the government telling them what they're doing is wrong?
Think I'm an Obama supporter? I guess by that logic that makes you a TSA fan and proponent of the Patriot Act. You must only pay lip service to your support of the 2A because you support a candidate who said the following:
“I don’t line up with the NRA.” - 1994
"“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.” - 2002
“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.” - 2004
What changed his mind in 2005 when he started supporting gun rights (at least vocally), and in 2006 joined the NRA as a Life Member? Could that be about the time he decided to pursue the presidency? I'm sure it's purely coincidence.
Unfortunately the two things Republicans need to destroy (and I mean DESTROY) the Democrats will never happen because the religious right controls the party. These two things are (a) quit trying to ban abortion, and (b) allow gay marriage. You can talk all you want about "it's only a small portion of the population", "it's immoral" blah blah blah - all it does it make Republicans look intolerant. Most people DON'T CARE about this stuff. I certainly don't (contrary to what you believe by the number of times I bring it up). In fact, the only reason I bring it up is because it keeps normal live and let live folks like me NOT want to support them. FFS, let people live their lives and get the federal government out of duties not specified in the Constitution. I agree with a fair amount of what the Republicans stand for, but they've got to get away from legislation dealing with personal decisions and what I do in the privacy of my own house. You may not agree with it on a moral level, but who are they to tell Americans what is right and what is wrong?
If they do that, maybe I'll come back.
Last edited:
Prometheus
Master
You assume that one will change the course. Given the fact there is NOTHING in romney's history to suggest he will alter the course of the nation, that argument falls flat on it's face.
Wrong again. In this case even more so.
Demographics. Spend some time and actually research the population and where America is headed.
Nearly one in two is on a government handout. Those numbers will continue to rise for each ethnicity. If you believe the influx of illegals is a bad thing, you know how quickly they are are becoming the majority in America.
Time is against the conservative. The tipping point is at hand and most likely is behind us.
You see, at least half of the people posting in this thread pay no taxes. Possibly more. Set aside the influx of those seeking to game the system, let's take a look at income levels traditionally considered "productive".
For example, Are you a LEO in Indiana with more than 5 people in your family? Yeah, that guy is (or could) get free lunch for their kids, free books... Not picking on LEO's, just pointing out, may people who are considered to be 'productive', are a drain on the system.
Just for yet more clarity, $70,000~ a year for a family of 5 gets you free lunch and books in Indiana (and everywhere else). That's just one example of how jacked up the system is.
How many people feel like they 'contribute' and 'pay their taxes' making 70k a year?
Yeah, news flash, you don't, when it washes, you are lucky (or I should say those people actually paying the taxes are lucky) if you are breaking even.
Liek the Chinese are capitalists? I could agree with that. Is he is LassieFare capitalist in the "American Dream" sense? Not just no, but heck no.
Mitt supports regulations, bail outs and red tape that stifles competition and eliminates small businesses.
RomneyCare, is there any better example of fascist control of an industry. "You can own the company and pick out the carpet and drapes in the board room, everything else? We, the government, tell you what you can and can't do... oh yeah, you'll pay us for the privilege too."
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Absolutely not. In fact, Jesus was probably about as popular as Johnson when he was alive. It was definitely not an easy road to follow his teachings back then (or today for that matter) and the status quo was denouncing him because he challenged their positions and authority.
Gary Johnson, Ron Paul are no where near Jesus. No one can be. I don't want to be accused of hoisting anyone to His level.
I love how you just gainsay my points. "uh..no. uh..no." LOL @ you. Your counterarguments are worthless conjecture. I didn't say Romney would change it. I said the rate of decent would allow it to be changed easier. which is true. Whether it will be changed or not, I did not speculate. You did, because you know the future, whereas I do not.
I agree with you demographics concept. It is unlikely that more voters will turn against entitlements, and yet RP garnered much more support this time around than last time so once again, the data points in my direction and the speculation (even if based on some reasonable concept still belongs to you.)
Also like how you cut off the bottm half of that last quote. choose what you want, ignore the rest. just like Romney.
According to you nothing will change. Ever. So why bother posting at all? Just enjoy doom and gloom? whats the point? I mean now that Mourdock and Romney are buddies I feel the despair wafting off of you.
Prometheus
Master
Not when you consider where the RP support came from. From the segments that aren't locked into those entitlements.
So the data does, in fact, support my position. The tipping point is here, this is likely the last election that a fiscally conservative platform can win if romney wins.
If romney wins we are stuck with him in 2016. The numbers won't be there in 2016. Perhaps conservatives stand a chance in 2016 with teh shock that continues from a obama debacle.
Assuming a currency collapse doesn't happen first and with romney's plan to continue the deficit, it's a moot point because both plans will be as likely to cause it. How long that system can be propped up is anyones guess. It could be anywhere between 2 and 20 years unless something DRASTIC changes.
Well duh!!
We've got a separation of church and state. We wouldn't want some religious zealot in office preaching to us all the time. You know he wouldn't be able to govern without his religion affecting his judgement.
Just kidding... You're right, obviously.
An understanding of the word "Idiocy" might allow you to be less condescending and patronizing:
id·i·o·cy [id-ee-uh-see]
noun, plural id·i·o·cies.
1. utterly senseless or foolish behavior; a stupid or foolish act, statement, etc.
MACHINEGUN
Shooter
He'll never be a US President, he's too anti-Israel just for starters!
Sorry....
I am not worried about the 2016 election.. What I am worried about is what happens between now and 2016 IF Obama stays in office. Him and his handlers will destroy this country. Remember the "fundamentaly transform America" speech during his 2008 campaign? He meant every word of it.
He has abused his executive power like no others and a second term will be much, much worse. He will have no voters to answer to then .
Remember what he told the Ruskies..
Obama tells Russian: I'll have leeway after Nov. - USATODAY.com
It won't be just the Ruskies he will "have more flexibility" with.
You aint seen nothing yet.There will be no holding him back.
So, go ahead and cast your "feel good vote" for a person that doesn't have a China man's chance at an Irish picnic and 4 years from now you'll be saying "what happened" when you will never see America again as we have known it.
I am not worried about the 2016 election.. What I am worried about is what happens between now and 2016 IF Obama stays in office. Him and his handlers will destroy this country. Remember the "fundamentaly transform America" speech during his 2008 campaign? He meant every word of it.
He has abused his executive power like no others and a second term will be much, much worse. He will have no voters to answer to then .
Remember what he told the Ruskies..
Obama tells Russian: I'll have leeway after Nov. - USATODAY.com
It won't be just the Ruskies he will "have more flexibility" with.
You aint seen nothing yet.There will be no holding him back.
So, go ahead and cast your "feel good vote" for a person that doesn't have a China man's chance at an Irish picnic and 4 years from now you'll be saying "what happened" when you will never see America again as we have known it.
Yes, I've considered Clinton before. I give him the due respect he has earned by becoming a candidate. The same respect I gave Pres. Obama, and now Gary Johnson. I don't vote based on looks, appearance, but it part of the package.
This is a very delicate topic, and I want to preface my response with this. I do not envy your position, and I'm sorry for your personal sacrifice. I mean no disrespect towards you personally, so please understand that as I type out the next few bars, that I am proud of you, I'm proud that you fought back, and are winning again.
Now with that, the republican party did not put you in that mess. The democratic party did not put you in that mess. Just the same, neither party got you out of that mess. The assistance you were provided, albeit just barely enough to get by on, had to come from somewhere. The money had to be allocated from another source to provide for you and your family in your difficult time of need. It came from America, without regard to political affiliation. These well established programs that provided for you, are not going to dry up the second Romney enters the white house. Programs that are vital the the revitalization of America are too engrained into the culture to simply vanish. The will be looked at, they will be streamlined, reorganized but they are not going to simply vanish. As the Romney/Ryan team works to Rebuild America, the need for these programs will subside, and as a result the programs themselves will shrink to match the need. Will Johnson's drastic cuts to the budget allow for a smooth transition?
Johnson will not have a strong enough voice to rally the senate and congress to propose changes. He will be fighting both sides of the isle simply to get his voice heard. As he vetoes bill after bill, the progress of the country will stall. The same programs will provide the same assistance to a now larger population. The money for that assistance has to come from somewhere, however this time, the well has run dry.
The American Spirit is strong. Its very Patriotic, and it wants to help right the ship, but in the current state each individual is on the brink of the disaster you just experienced.
Yup, typo
I don't know the facts of the tax breaks. But I can tell you this. I'm a very generous person. I give thousands to charity annually. Rarely will I turn down a request for a donation. I've recently shifted my giving to make a larger difference. I'm not of the mindset that I'd rather give "lots" of money to one or two organizations, so they can make a difference, than to give lost of organizations a little bit of money. As the cost of gas, food, energy continues to rise, and my paycheck however does not, it forces me to pull back a little. I no longer have the same capital available to give away. The same goes for the rich, and for big banks, and fortune 500 companies. The more you tax them, they less they have to give away. Like you, and I, we are real concerned about our bottom line. You have to find a way to fund america without going after the ones who generous enough to give it away.
It's not that simple. I suspect the big reason it doesn't get the support that you feel it should is the effect it has on society. Now, I'm going out on a limb here, and speaking based on my own ideas. My mom and dad are still married, each only married once, my wife's mom and dad, same thing. My daughter only has 4 grandparents. I'm pretty proud of that, and I attribute a lot of my success to my upbringing. As families break up, as society drifts away from the notion that you marry a member of the opposite sex, and you do it for life, there has to be a ripple effect across the next generation. It's this ripple effect that is unmeasurable, and so misunderstood, but its this ripple effect that I'm ok with not perpetuating. HOWEVER, I've said before, the individual right to do as you please should prevail, and at the local level communities should make the necessary changes that their community needs. I don't know what impact it would have if the go'vt came out and simply allowed it. It's not something that sends me to the polls either way.
Precisely. So if they can't come up with a 43% number this early in the game, how does Gary Johnson?
Romney was elected Governor in a very democratic state. The leadership around him was heavily democratic, so many of his ideas and beliefs were formed from the left. This doesn't make him bad. It makes him a team player willing to work with his team, Dem and Republican, to make America the best it can be. I think flip flopping is part of life. I'm sure there are many parents of homosexual children, who at one point were very very against gay rights and gay marriage. As their world changed, and issues hit them on a personal level, they flip flopped, or as I would say, became educated on the topic, and took a different stance to better their lives, and the lives of their children.
Or one's average run of the mill BM.
Oh Lord! ViperJock, now you went and done it, called the whole group ignorant! You need to apologize forthwith before you get spoken to by an all knowing adult in patronizing tones because you hurt their feelings! Questioning the well thought out disillusionment. What were you thinking ???
I guess it's best to leave the 3rd party people alone to contemplate their political navels and wish upon a star.
Any other time I might very well agree with them that a 3rd party would be a good thing, but their argument that both Dems and Reps are the same is naive. In fact, it underscores their own inability to grasp the current political situation or the danger that the country is in. And to embrace a party that is so diverse in it's own interpretation of itself at this time of social and political upheaval is absurd. Attempting to pin the Libertarian party down is like herding cats. In fact, it is almost anarchist in its definition of its lack of a mandate. The only thing it seems to embrace is that it is NOT democrat or Republican! It's very candidates are all over the board in their beliefs. Some are pro-choice, some are not. Some are strong 2A, some are not. Some are worse than Democrats in their liberal perspective and some are ultra conservative.
I use to be a member of the Libertarian Party, but I never could figure out where they stood collectively on an issue because, as I found out, there is no consensus. A candidate needs a party mandate behind him or else, no matter how well his intentions, he has no power to affect any change. In truth, the Libertarian Party will never amount to more than a footnote in American history simply because it cannot collectively decide where it stands on any issue. No consensus, no platform, no power.
Paul realized this at least, I believe, and that is why he ran on the Republican ticket. The Libertarians on here who seem to rever him might remember that lesson and reconsider it themselves.
Any other time I might very well agree with them that a 3rd party would be a good thing, but their argument that both Dems and Reps are the same is naive. In fact, it underscores their own inability to grasp the current political situation or the danger that the country is in. And to embrace a party that is so diverse in it's own interpretation of itself at this time of social and political upheaval is absurd. Attempting to pin the Libertarian party down is like herding cats. In fact, it is almost anarchist in its definition of its lack of a mandate. The only thing it seems to embrace is that it is NOT democrat or Republican! It's very candidates are all over the board in their beliefs. Some are pro-choice, some are not. Some are strong 2A, some are not. Some are worse than Democrats in their liberal perspective and some are ultra conservative.
I use to be a member of the Libertarian Party, but I never could figure out where they stood collectively on an issue because, as I found out, there is no consensus. A candidate needs a party mandate behind him or else, no matter how well his intentions, he has no power to affect any change. In truth, the Libertarian Party will never amount to more than a footnote in American history simply because it cannot collectively decide where it stands on any issue. No consensus, no platform, no power.
Paul realized this at least, I believe, and that is why he ran on the Republican ticket. The Libertarians on here who seem to rever him might remember that lesson and reconsider it themselves.
Whatever you're suppose to be taking, I think you maybe forgot or possibly doubled your dose. Regardless, hook a brother up. It might be interesting to see the world through a conspiracy/delusional perspective.
Since I'm not on the field, who I root for doesn't matter.
Furthermore, as a Bears fan, I take great offense that they were likened to Obama in your analogy, though, with his being from Chicago, I guess I can abide the insult
The libertarian party needs to grow. You can force its grown by electing a figurehead at the top. Even if Johnson is elected this cycle, he will have no support, and will have to govern as a dictator. I"m pretty sure thats not what we want.
If you want a Libertarian president, you have to have more Libertarians in offices across the nation. The notion of simply putting him at the helm and hoping for the best will not work.
Grow it, don't force it.
If you want a Libertarian president, you have to have more Libertarians in offices across the nation. The notion of simply putting him at the helm and hoping for the best will not work.
Grow it, don't force it.
Actual, I don't find anything wrong with what ViperJock said. He did not call anyone ignorant but rather pointed out that he believes the idea that Romney = Obama is short sighted and ignorant. That's not the same thing as calling a group of people idiots. I don't agree with ViperJock but he presented his opinion in an adult manner and demonstrated that his stance on the matter has been formed by giving rational thought and coming to a conclusion. I can accept and respect that.
I'm definitely not all knowing but I appreciate you thinking so. You're definitely giving me too much credit that I can't accept.
I see it's easier to respond sarcastically to a post that shares your view instead of responding to mine and at least owning up to how wrong calling people idiots is. But seriously, don't you worry, it takes a whole lot more than what you've said to hurt my feelings. I just point out bad behavior when I see it.
This might be more your speed...
But it won't grow. America has rejected them. It isn't a lack of funding or media attention. The vast majority of Americans think they are on the lunatic fringe.
Don't get me wrong. I like most of what they stand for. But you have to take the blinders off and realize most of the ideas just don't sell and they aren't going to any time soon.
1) Rand would've made me somewhat interested too.
2) Not being pro-something does not necessarily make one anti-something. I do not consider Dr. Paul's positions on Israel to be anti-Israel.
Edit: To expound, I actually believe them to be pro-Israel (Israel as a sovereign state) as opposed to the current usage of "pro-Israel", which tends to mean Israel as a worthwhile client state in the middle east.
3) No, he will never be US President, nor will anyone like him as too many people are so entrenched in the Uniparty to ever allow such a truly Constitution-minded individual to be widely accepted as viable. The ideas of not further running up the national credit card and not playing GloboCop are too crazy to consider.
Last edited:
Site Supporter
Members online
- MadBomber
- Michigan Slim
- bgcatty
- loudgroove
- printcraft
- Lwright
- JTL165
- keeph8n
- TLHelmer
- bwframe
- red_zr24x4
- mmpsteve
- F1Fanatic
- grillak
- WHITE_WOLFE
- singlesix
- KG1
- Middlefart
- tca1352
- Firehawk
- Revdev86
- Okimeister
- adam
- Rio
- slims2002
- Jim McKalip
- Mark-DuCo
- yeti rider
- Meatstick
- oze
- WebSnyper
- Blacknight179
- AndyF
- JayCo
- wtburnette
- Creedmoor
- RJW
- renauldo
- Gabriel
- 223 Gunner
- Fordtough25
- indyblue
- meyer4589
- BeDome
- JRR85
- radar8756
- BigMoose
- Chance
- Ark
- cjacobs